Posted under Tags
I typically only tag barefoot if I see human feet. I'm not familiar with how people into non humans do or would prefer their tagging.
Like do we tag clothed furry characters as barefoot if they aren't wearing shoes?
I guess the difference is we expect human characters to be clothed and wearing shoes and we tag barefoot, shoes, no_shoes in those cases. But for non humans seeing a paw or stump or whatever is the default.
I know of the pokemon Hatterene, same humanoid with stumps for feet as Gardevoir (though not commonly visible).
Perhaps barefoot could be used for non humanoids generally if they are otherwise clothed? Just looking through furry + barefoot and just furry it seems like there is no consensus in general to even tag barefoot.
As for shoe dangle, I guess it would depend on if the shoe is still on or not. In like 99% of the typical shoe dangle posts I'd say barefoot wouldn't apply, but for example post #6134029 I would say that's barefoot. There is this fairly new tag extreme_dangling that could be used to manage those.
baconmeh2 said:
Does this apply on characters with paws/animal feet?
A subsection of furry/non-human characters simply don't wear clothes. Midna, Pokémon like Lucario and Lopunny, most major male Sonic characters, Clawroline, Sidon, Digimon like Gaomon and Renamon, My Melody etc. are all depicted essentially in the nude because their designs generally lack any reason to be clothed. Such characters tend to only have very minor semblances of breasts/nipples (if any), no genitalia, basically nothing of a sexual nature that would require covering up. Unless they're depicted with such features, I don't tag them with nude because the point of that tag is for finding posts of characters you'd expect to be wearing clothes, but aren't. For example, Sonic not wearing pants doesn't count - unless he has his cock out, which is then nude because he could only get away with that on certain beaches.
Similarly, for SFW posts of these kinds of furry characters with their feet in view (except maybe the Sonic cast since they're always depicted with shoes on), I don't tag them as barefoot unless they're also depicted wearing an actual outfit, because at that point a conscious decision has been made to have the character be clothed but still not wear shoes or legwear. This same argument also applies to both bottomless and topless/topless_male.
baconmeh2 said:
No toes? Stub-like feet (Think Gardevoir, or Midna in some cases)?
Whether or not a foot has toes doesn't matter. If Midna was wearing a suit in post #3789150 but no shoes/legwear, it'd still qualify for barefoot.
As for stub-like feet, this depends on how we want to use the barefoot tag. Is it restricted only for feet that are bare? Or is it more broad, also describing a lack of footwear when you'd otherwise expect to see some, even if there are no actual feet? I vote for the latter, and to demonstrate I'll once again employ the suit hypothetical - however, in this case it's no longer hypothetical. post #4357952 features Gardevoir wearing a suit but no shoes/legwear. Such a post is exactly the kind of thing I'd expect to see when searching gardevoir barefoot, even though it's a bit nontraditional in terms of the barefoot tag (you know, seeing as the whole foot part is missing). Examples like this one are also few and very far between, meaning they will never even come close to flooding the usual results one would expect to see searching barefoot. As such, I see no negatives to tagging them with it.
Please never make me think this much about feet ever again.
