Tag Implication: barefoot -> feet

Implicating barefoot to feet.

Reason: any image that has characters being visibly barefoot (warranting the tag), also has feet.

Maybe it should be an alias in fact... Though, one could have an image of some cut off feet and that would qualify for the feet tag but not so much barefoot. (Weird example, I know.)

EDIT: it seems some images with feet with socks on are also tagged as feet, so yeah, implication is the way to go I reckon.

I remember someone making the distinction before that an individual can be barefoot without the image having any particular focus on the feet. Is that a distinction we're still making? In that case, they wouldn't be implicated.

I'd agree with that.

Prime example: Ichinose_Kotomi is frequently barefoot, but few of her images focus explicitly on her feet

[snip]

スラッシュ said:
Implicating barefoot to feet.

No. Barefoot means someone isn't wearing footwear in the pic. Feet means the pic concentrates on or prominently features the feet. They're very much not the same thing. See post #382979 or post #382787 for example.

This seems like a prime example of tag definitions and implications not only having to be logically valid, but convenient as well.

Very inconvenient in fact, since there's no good reason why the feet tag arbitrarily only contains pictures that "focus" on the feet, but okay.

スラッシュ said:
Very inconvenient in fact, since there's no good reason why the feet tag arbitrarily only contains pictures that "focus" on the feet, but okay.

*cough*. Because some of us like this kind of pictures. That's all.