In the near future, we will be invalidating the `armpits` tag.

Short explanation: the deciding factor was the existence of more focused tags, such as `armpit_fetish` and `armpit_lick` (full list here) , along with pose tags, specifically `hands_behind_head`, `arms_above_head` and `raised_arm` (that last one is a stretch, as the arm will not always be raised in a direction that shows the pit).

Some stats:

• 6% (6461 / 107979) of posts for armpit contain ~armpit_fetish ~armpit_lick ~armpit_hair ~armpit_sniffing

• 9% (9765 / 107979) of posts for armpit contain ~hands_behind_head ~arms_above_head ~raised_arm (keep in mind, poses tend to be undertagged)

Given its current usage, `armpits` is far too broad, and armpits themselves are as ubiquitous as arms and legs.

There are probably other reasons that I'm willing to elaborate on if asked. Feel free to discuss.

Other announcements, we will be considering some changes on how we tag breasts, specifically when they're covered. Details to come.

When you get to the breast stuff, the second half of forum #212519 might be worth discussing. I can make a more detailed comparison if necessary.

+1

If we keep armpits i demand we tag arm leg and neck as well.

+1

Please fucking get rid of this stupid, useless tag.

If you're gonna axe the tag completely, you might wanna set up implications for the tags covered under armpit_fetish so people can search/block them all in one go.

@Eppleblam is gonna be devastated. That was kind of their whole shtick.

Wow, that is a huge change... :(

But like BlueDingo said, what about all the fetish tags content? Are those tags going to stay?

What about images like this, where they're prominent - but not necessarily enough so to warrant, say, an "armpit_focus" tag?

post #1010865

Honourable_Corpse said:
What about images like this, where they're prominent - but not necessarily enough so to warrant, say, an "armpit_focus" tag?

post #1010865

Maybe prominent_armpits? Not "technically" accurate, but sometimes we need to ignore technicalities for the sake of usability.

Knotty_Curls said:
In the near future, we will be invalidating the `armpits` tag.

Thank you.

+1 never used this tag.

+1, have seen this added into images where armpits aren't even showing up that much.

I could understand this kind of tag for fetish content, but what's the point when it's used on every single image where you can see characters arms essentially?

Some points I wanted to respond with:

1) The "armpits" tag is not the only tag that's broad; the "butt" tag is very broad as well. Look at posts like these: post #1204601, post #1204313, post #1204471 (all from the front page of the tag). These images don't really show the butt with extreme focus, but they're still there and visible and that's all that's needed according to the wiki page, which says the tag is to be used "if a butt is visible or, more usually, prominently featured, regardless of whether it is clothed or not."

They don't HAVE TO BE prominent, just visible.

2.) Piggy-backing off what Honourable Corpse said, I would argue that there are an EXTREME amount of posts that people interested in armpits would be interested in that just simply don't qualify for more specific related tags. Posts like post #821634, post #539085 and post #97599 are just a few of the MANY, MANY examples you can find looking through the tag listing that can show this.

Eppleblam said:
1) The "armpits" tag is not the only tag that's broad; the "butt" tag is very broad as well.

yes, it seems inconsistent to invalidate one and not the other. is the deciding factor the use of focused tags? if so, is it simple to create focused tags for "butt"?

Also, third point I'd like to add is that not only should the armpit-related tags not cancel the need for the main tag, like I addressed, but also for a large portion of images with this tag, a lot of posts that would qualify have not been tagged using the pose tags like "raised_arm" and etc. so these tags wouldn't be a suitable and complete replacement either. In fact, a lot of posts on this site don't ever use the pose tags. They're very underused.

Eppleblam said:
In fact, a lot of posts on this site don't ever use the pose tags. They're very underused.

perhaps it's because tag_group:pose is underexposed compared to the others. it would be a big project to overhaul the thing.

it would be nice if the folks in favour of removing the armpits tag would give some reasons why.

Also, if the "armpits" tag is so scrutinized, why is there no uproar about how vague the "teeth" tag is, or the "smile" tag? Are smiles so important in these pictures that they HAVE to be tagged (post #1204482, post #1204453, post #1204562)? No, but that's how tags seem to operate here. It angers me a bit that the armpits tag gets looked at more harshly than other tags that aren't "essential". If vague tags like "butts", "smile" and "teeth" are A-OK, so should armpits.

Butt is in the realm of Breasts, where it's something people look for. If it's going on images where you can barely see it, it should be removed. Armpits, however, are something people are rarely interested in enough to want to look for them when they aren't really a focus of the image.

That all said, "teeth" does seem a bit silly to include. We only really need the sharp teeth and other specific tags. Smile ought to be sorted into closed smiles versus open smiles, but is worth keeping.

Furrin_Gok said:
That all said, "teeth" does seem a bit silly to include. We only really need the sharp teeth and other specific tags. Smile ought to be sorted into closed smiles versus open smiles, but is worth keeping.

perhaps there are people who blacklist teeth because they really hate teeth, the same as there are people who search for armpits because they really like armpits. i don't think either tag is overstaying its welcome.

Eppleblam said:
Also, if the "armpits" tag is so scrutinized, why is there no uproar about how vague the "teeth" tag is, or the "smile" tag? Are smiles so important in these pictures that they HAVE to be tagged (post #1204482, post #1204453, post #1204562)? No, but that's how tags seem to operate here. It angers me a bit that the armpits tag gets looked at more harshly than other tags that aren't "essential". If vague tags like "butts", "smile" and "teeth" are A-OK, so should armpits.

Smiling is part of conveying emotions, a large part in a lot of images. Defined butts and breasts are evolutionary important traits that signal the health of a potential mate, and thus hard-coded to be important.

Armpits, on the other hand, are currently terribly tagged. You've said yourself, and I quote, "The "pit" isn't always necessary. Specific little detail lines showing the center of the armpit are always nice, but what counts in more instances is simply the area of the armpit; seeing the space underneath the shoulder counts to me."^{[1], this is like tagging breasts because the chest is partially visible, or like tagging butt because the lower back is in view. On the other hand I agree with you, teeth should only be tagged if they're in places where they shouldn't be (removed on the ground, growing in places where no mouth is), or other such extraordinary circumstances.}

what about the feet tag? it exist just because there's many feet fetishists?, also knot tag should be removed when there's no sexual act, there's canine_penis tag for that

y_r_wenotfundingthis said:
what about the feet tag? it exist just because there's many feet fetishists?, also knot tag should be removed when there's no sexual act, there's canine_penis tag for that

Thing is if you see feet on image, you do not tag them. Only when they are on focus or there's something done with them e.g. someone is licking or massaging them. Just like neck isn't tagged unless someone is being e.g. strangled, gotten cum on neck or has neck tuft.

You see the idea here? Basically it's pointless to tag basic anatomy stuff that can be assumed to be there as it doesn't help anyone with anything. Stuff under armpits tag right now is essentially regular characters whose arms you can see.

Eppleblam said:
Posts like post #821634, post #539085 and post #97599 are just a few of the MANY, MANY examples you can find looking through the tag listing that can show this.

These should be tagged with following:
hands_behind_head
hand_behind_head
And the problem is that with those two tags you can be almost certain you get this kind of content, meanwhile with armpits I get these:
post #1204037 post #1203883 post #1203804
I guess there is armpit in image, but if I searched for it I wouldn't want any of these.

And yes. Butt tag is also getting out of hands.

Mario69 said:
Thing is if you see feet on image, you do not tag them. Only when they are on focus or there's something done with them e.g. someone is licking or massaging them. Just like neck isn't tagged unless someone is being e.g. strangled, gotten cum on neck or has neck tuft.

That's an extremely unintuitive policy considering it basically contradicts TWYS. I think if you're going to accept a certain body part as a valid tag it should be TWYS. As for neck...it should be an invalid tag...no one is jacking off to a character's neck.

Mario69 said:
You see the idea here? Basically it's pointless to tag basic anatomy stuff that can be assumed to be there

The thing with feet though is you can't assume they'll be there. Most of the time they're outside of the frame, or in some sort of footwear, or they're conveniently obscured in some way. A lot of artists don't like drawing them and actively draw their images in such a manner so they don't have to include them. I think feet should definitely be tagged whenever they're seen considering all of this, AND considering that they are a sexual body part for a lot of people...foot fetish is one of the most common fetishes.

Dyrone said:
That's an extremely unintuitive policy considering it basically contradicts TWYS.

have to agree with this; i believe in an archive that aims to be exhaustive, and not have tags limited by how common they are.

The other thing about 'feet' is that there are alternatives to them. Some characters are drawn with paws or with hooves. Tagging for feet allows people to search out or to filter out images with specifically plantigrade* feet. Armpits don't have alternative structures that need to be distinguished.

*Some things don't quite work for humanoid_feet but also clearly aren't paws like post #1198625

Dyrone said:
That's an extremely unintuitive policy considering it basically contradicts TWYS. I think if you're going to accept a certain body part as a valid tag it should be TWYS. As for neck...it should be an invalid tag...no one is jacking off to a character's neck.

fewrahuxo said:
have to agree with this; i believe in an archive that aims to be exhaustive, and not have tags limited by how common they are.

So we start tagging eye balls, ears, nose, lips, neck, shoulders, arms, wrists, elbows, ankles, knees, etc. now?
Because some do have nose and ear fetish, but we do not tag those unless nose have something like piercing or someone is licking it or ears unless they are pointy on humanoid or someone is inserting their penis on it.

No, this is not unintuitive, it's just basic common sense. If character is not amputated (and we tag amputations), they most likely have arms, and thus armpits, no matter what the artstyle is or was it on image or not. Because the tagging on armpits have been so inconsistant, it's basically if character has arms and they show up on image = armpits tagged.

Just as reminder, tail has already been invalidated ages ago.

Mario69 said:
[...]

we're forced to work within the limits of what is reasonable given our modest workforce. for while there are many creatures without eyes nor ears nor noses, the majority of them have them, and so it would be unreasonable to tag them.

it must be said that armpits are not a common theme in art. as an estimate, if 90% of images have arms, then 10% of them have armpits. i believe that 10% is not common enough to warrant the absense of the armpit tag.

and if the problem is inconsistency, then simply write the definition to be more consistent. the nuclear option shouldn't come first.

fewrahuxo said:
it must be said that armpits are not a common theme in art. as an estimate, if 90% of images have arms, then 10% of them have armpits. i believe that 10% is not common enough to warrant the absense of the armpit tag.

and if the problem is inconsistency, then simply write the definition to be more consistent. the nuclear option shouldn't come first.

Thank you for getting into core of the whole discussion. The problem here is that the 10% should've been tagged, but now it's 90% that has been tagged. Nobody sane will go to fix those 80% at this point and many of those posts under that 10% can be searched with other tags, like said before armpit_fetish or hand_behind_head.

I guess there is also possibility to make more clear definition on the tag that would actually reflect it more, but pretty sure we still need to nuke current tags, like as stated above, who will go and fix majority of the tagged posts to reflect that new definition?

Mario69 said:
I guess there is also possibility to make more clear definition on the tag that would actually reflect it more, but pretty sure we still need to nuke current tags, like as stated above, who will go and fix majority of the tagged posts to reflect that new definition?

Epplebaum is already dedicated, and I am willing to handle all of the SFW tags and remove the armpit tag from those that don't meet the new, more consistent criteria that must be discussed.

perhaps the criteria on the armpit Wiki page shall read "to be tagged when the 'pit' of an armpit is visible."

for instance, i don't believe the first image would qualify, but the second one seems reasonable.

post #1195716 post #1193822

+1 for invalidation.

I like the idea of streamlining tags more, with further remaining body part tags being invalidated. Fetish searches can still be made via focused tags, such as 'foot_fetish' or 'armpit_lick'; for any armpit fetishists out there, searches like 'arms_behind_head', 'hands_above_head', or 'stretching' must already be in your toolkit.

I do not think we need tags like 'lips' when there is 'big_lips' for a distinct characteristic, nor 'teeth' yet keeping 'toothy_grin' to differentiate from a basic smile, at. al.

When not an identifying or exaggerated characteristic, nor a sexual / sexualized body part, tagging it is fairly pointless.

y_r_wenotfundingthis said:
... knot tag should be removed when there's no sexual act, there's canine_penis tag for that

A knot does not always a canine penis make:

post #494118 post #1165785

Sharp_Coyote said:
+1 for invalidation.

I like the idea of streamlining tags more, with further remaining body part tags being invalidated. Fetish searches can still be made via focused tags, such as 'foot_fetish' or 'armpit_lick'; for any armpit fetishists out there, searches like 'arms_behind_head', 'hands_above_head', or 'stretching' must already be in your toolkit.

I do not think we need tags like 'lips' when there is 'big_lips' for a distinct characteristic, nor 'teeth' yet keeping 'toothy_grin' to differentiate from a basic smile, at. al.

When not an identifying or exaggerated characteristic, nor a sexual / sexualized body part, tagging it is fairly pointless.

A knot does not always a canine penis make:

post #494118 post #1165785

not all lips are big_lips thou, and lips are not all that common on anthros or ferals, its rather a oddity. i agree on the invalidation of feet and armpits but dont see the same for lips.

Regarding knots, its irrelevant if there is an act going on or not, if its visible you tag it. And as Sharp Coyote pointed out a penis can have a knot without being canine. i see alot of people drawing equine and dragon penises with knots...

I think this just highlights how important it is to write good wiki articles concerning subjects like these...people are dumb, er, or maybe lazy is the right word? Anyways...don't just assume they are going to use a tag correctly...tell them how to use it.

All it would have taken is a single line saying something like "only use this tag when the actual PIT of the arm is visible...if a characters arms are down do not use this tag". Ofc that wouldn't have solved the entire problem because not everyone reads the wiki, but it would have certainly helped. I imagine it would have shaved at least 500-1,000 mistagged images off the tag.

Dyrone said:
I think this just highlights how important it is to write good wiki articles concerning subjects like these

one thing you notice with online wikis is that whoever gets to the page first dictates the direction it takes. for instance, nobody has seriously contested my candy_gore page.

on Wikipedia, you also notice that there are one or two active patrollers of any given article, and they dictate what goes on. they're not supposed to, by official policy, but that's the way it goes.

on the plus side, having this liberty allows competent editors to do something right the first time without asking permission, allowing others to fix their inevitable mistakes. having this independence can makes a smart writer shine, especially if they make a good definition the first time.

i think it's fair to alter the armpit page to continue on with the "pit" suggestion.

As an update to this, armpits has been invalidated. As a result of the invalidation, 108k+ posts were added to invalid_tag. As a result of that, invalid_tag was cleared from all current posts. The now 56 posts in invalid_tag are available for review and corrections for those wanting to do that task.

Please make sure you are not adding invalid_tag to your posts by trying to tag armpits.

again, what was the reason to invalidate armpits tag?

Seem a bit odd if it was invalidated before the applicable posts were added to armpit_fetish.

Peekaboo said:
Seem a bit odd if it was invalidated before the applicable posts were added to armpit_fetish.

The same user who tagged the majority of armpit posts also tended to add armpit_fetish, armpit_lick, etc. when applicable.

y_r_wenotfundingthis said:
again, what was the reason to invalidate armpits tag?

It's stated in the very first post of this thread. Too broadly applied a tag to be useful, like how we don't tag just "feet" or "arms".

BRING BACK THIS FRIGGIN TAG

you all made a mistake!
this was a great tag! A mighty fine tag! And y'all go and ruin a good thing.
Why must you do things that cause grief sometimes?
post #1525770

I don't want to use raised arm or armpit fetish, just armpit!