Donmai

Remove alias knees together feet together -> legs together

Posted under Tags

ehh

I assumed knees together was meant to be used on posts where feet aren't visible so it's not possible to tell exactly if a post should be tagged with legs together or knees together feet apart. It doesn't seem to be currently used consistently for this purpose though.

I'd actually prefer the current knees_together_feet_together -> legs_together alias to be reversed. Sure, the wiki definition is pretty clear but there still are people who mistag knees_together_feet_together posts with legs_together (e.g. post #4567150 from the first page of legs together) and it seems at least some of these mistags could've been prevented with a more specific tag name. I'm not sure if autocomplete is an issue here since you could use /ktft and /ktfa as shorthand.

edit: if cases like post #4419562 or post #4393913 don't count as legs_together (not sure myself, the shins aren't very close together but knees and feet are) then my suggestion above isn't going to be a good idea as both posts have knees and feet touching but wouldn't fit the wiki definition

Updated

Reply
nonamethanks

BUR #5720 has been approved by @evazion.

create alias knees_together -> legs_together

This will have to then be unaliased, as knees together is better fit as a disambiguation tag.

ehh said:

I assumed knees together was meant to be used on posts where feet aren't visible so it's not possible to tell exactly if a post should be tagged with legs together or knees together feet apart.

It's almost always obvious from the direction of the legs whether the feet are together or not. We shouldn't assume characters have feet as long as their legs.

Reply
Nacha sabisabi BrokenEagle98
CoreMack

nonamethanks said:

BUR #5720 has been approved by @evazion.

create alias knees_together -> legs_together

While I think its a good idea to get rid of knees_together, it seems strange to me to call post #4561631 legs_together. I had tagged it as knees_together precisely because neither legs_together nor knees_together_feet_apart seemed appropriate.

I guess we just need to change the legs_together definition from "legs with minimal or no separation along their entire length" to something broader along the lines of "knees together and feet together, even if the calfs are apart". It seems a bit unintuitive to me, but it's better than creating pointless tags for every combination of legs/feet/knees apart/together. Alternatively we could switch to aliasing legs_together -> knees_together_feet_together which would be a more intuitive name for this pose, but at the cost of using a much uglier, longer tag

Similarly with post #4419562 as ehh pointed out. I guess legs_together pigeon-toed will serve to grab this pose if necessary

Reply
evazion

ehh said:

I'd actually prefer the current knees_together_feet_together -> legs_together alias to be reversed. Sure, the wiki definition is pretty clear but there still are people who mistag knees_together_feet_together posts with legs_together (e.g. post #4567150 from the first page of legs together) and it seems at least some of these mistags could've been prevented with a more specific tag name. I'm not sure if autocomplete is an issue here since you could use /ktft and /ktfa as shorthand.

Legs together may be ambiguous, but knees together feet together is a mouthful. I think we have a really bad tendency to overcomplicate things. In isolation these decisions usually make sense, but collectively it leads to a site full of cumbersome tags. In the long run, every tag gets workshopped to death.

And as mentioned, KTFT still isn't precise enough, since the calves might not be together. You can always count on taggers taking the uselessly literal interpretation of any tag. I think it mostly comes down to gardening the tag such that when you search for legs together, you can clearly see what it's for. When people see a tag flooded with garbage, then they think it's okay to add more garbage.

I guess we just need to change the legs_together definition from "legs with minimal or no separation along their entire length" to something broader along the lines of "knees together and feet together, even if the calfs are apart".

I think the current definition is fine, "legs completely together" is a specific thing and diluting it just makes the original meaning harder to find.

Reply
CoreMack

evazion said:

And as mentioned, KTFT still isn't precise enough, since the calves might not be together. You can always count on taggers taking the uselessly literal interpretation of any tag.

I think the current definition is fine, "legs completely together" is a specific thing and diluting it just makes the original meaning harder to find.

If the current definition remains the same, then my examples, post #4419562 and post #4561631, should no longer be legs_together right? What should they be instead? Is pigeon-toed enough, no legs/knees tag necessary?

Reply
evazion

Well, we do still have knees touching. But does it need to be tagged with anything else? Pigeon-toed seems enough to me.

Imagine if the legs in those posts were just barely not touching. Would that affect anything? Not to me, it's still the same basic pose. So whether the legs are technically touching or not seems incidental, the main point is the pigeon toes.

Reply
CoreMack

evazion said:

Well, we do still have knees touching. But does it need to be tagged with anything else? Pigeon-toed seems enough to me.

Imagine if the legs in those posts were just barely not touching. Would that affect anything? Not to me, it's still the same basic pose. So whether the legs are technically touching or not seems incidental, the main point is the pigeon toes.

That makes sense. I'm going to add a line about it to the legs_together wiki and fix the mistagged posts that I can find.

Reply
1