In the original invalidation thread for armpits tag: https://e621.net/forum_topics/17431

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)

This was used as justification to invalidate the tag - which was an obvious statistical fallacy associated with the claim that "armpit" was too broad.

It instead proves that "~armpit_fetish ~armpit_lick ~armpit_hair ~armpit_sniffing" and "~hands_behind_head ~arms_above_head ~raised_arm" are too narrow

For the majority of posts tagged with armpit, it was a relevant tag in that it demarcated a highly visible portion of a character.
Much like other parts of the body that are tagged, it's an easy add that aids in finding specific content and poses.

I'm of the opinion that we should invalidate "breast" and "butt", since they are simply too broad. Every character has a butt!

I am for this; if we can have fingers, navel, butt and teeth, I think we can spare an armpit. I enjoy the idea of replacing the armpit tag with, among other tags, armpit_hair, on a site where the majority of characters are literally covered with hair. That's really funny to me.

I agree but it's been brought up multiple times and it's not going to happen

I'm all for reinstating this tag in some form; like Korbok said, we have tags for all sorts of mundane things so it seems unfair to rob armpit fetishists of their 'thing'. Looking at the old thread, it looks like it was gotten rid of because it was overused by people tagging it on any picture with even a slither of skin between the arm and torso showing, making it useless. Maybe a new tag would be better, something like prominent_armpit, full_armpit or spread_armpit? The pose tags (hands_behind_head etc.) don't cover the same ground because the armpit isn't always visible depending on if the character is clothed or facing away, and I think that the armpit_fetish should only be used when the armpit is being directly interacted with, or when the armpit is heavily sexualised by the artist.

People want Armpit tag back, yes! I'm not the only one, and I bet we'll NEVER STOP SEEING THIS TOPIC BROUGHT UP

BringBacktheArmpits!!! MODS won't bring it back and they're being stubborn about it.
"it's an invalid tag, nobody would use it, it makes no sense" uncultured.
post #2912791

The removal of the tag was arbitrary and harmed the site more than it helped it.

I would like to direct the admins to this thread from a couple years ago, when you guys wiped the kangaroo tag from the site, said you guys wouldn't fix it, got testy when you were told that didn't make any sense, locked the thread to prevent people from talking about it, and a couple of month later it was back again?

It does much more for your community outreach to say you fucked up and fix it rather than it does waggling the ban hammer at people and then fix it when you think no one is watching.

lonelylupine said:
I would like to direct the admins to this thread from a couple years ago, when you guys wiped the kangaroo tag from the site, said you guys wouldn't fix it, got testy when you were told that didn't make any sense, locked the thread to prevent people from talking about it, and a couple of month later it was back again?

"You guys", like they're a single hive-mind collective. The person who locked the thread isn't a moderator anymore (and did so because it was apparently devolving into needless bickering and name-calling), and while I can't find the history of who aliased and de-aliased kangaroo, it was quite possibly aliased by someone who also isn't a moderator anymore.

Not sure what the point is to bring up two year old drama for an unrelated tag, though. Pointing out that the moderators once changed their stance on the kangaroo tag means nothing in regards to whether the armpit tag should be un-invalidated. People are more likely to change their mind after being given reasonable arguments, not digging up old drama that they may not have been involved in.

watsit said:
"You guys", like they're a single hive-mind collective. The person who locked the thread isn't a moderator anymore (and did so because it was apparently devolving into needless bickering and name-calling), and while I can't find the history of who aliased and de-aliased kangaroo, it was quite possibly aliased by someone who also isn't a moderator anymore.

Not sure what the point is to bring up two year old drama for an unrelated tag, though. Pointing out that the moderators once changed their stance on the kangaroo tag means nothing in regards to whether the armpit tag should be un-invalidated. People are more likely to change their minds after being given reasonable arguments, not digging up old drama that they may not have been involved in.

sometimes a sexy and alluring armpit ought to be tagged but it's not exclusively because it's a fetish. So Armpit_Fetish doesn't fit what some taggers are looking for, neither is hands_behind_head cause that's depicting ONE action in which the arms are moving which would reveal the armpits, but isn't a tag that is exclusively for armpits. As it stands right now, armpits have no general tag that feels right.

you either go 0 or 100 when a user is trying to tag, what they deem, is a sexy armpit shot. Hand/Hands_behind_head is not exclusively armpits and armpit fetish is, at most times, taking it too far.

there's no common ground. Armpit tag was a sweet middle ground! This is something MODS completely ignore.
Just like FEET, Armpit is a kink that needs to be properly expressed in tagging. To take the tag away is to take away an entire kink.

Imagine if we invalidate feet, then what would people with feet kinks tag pictures that have sexy feet but isn't "foot_focus" or "foot_fetish"? You see, there's nothing but the 0 option or the 100 option and they'd both be the WRONG usage of the tag. So basically, you'd have NO TAG

which is the dilemma Armpit is in right now. This topic won't stop being brought up. Cause Armpit has NO Middle-Ground TAG!

watsit said:
"You guys", like they're a single hive-mind collective. The person who locked the thread isn't a moderator anymore (and did so because it was apparently devolving into needless bickering and name-calling), and while I can't find the history of who aliased and de-aliased kangaroo, it was quite possibly aliased by someone who also isn't a moderator anymore.

Not sure what the point is to bring up two year old drama for an unrelated tag, though. Pointing out that the moderators once changed their stance on the kangaroo tag means nothing in regards to whether the armpit tag should be un-invalidated. People are more likely to change their mind after being given reasonable arguments, not digging up old drama that they may not have been involved in.

Touched a nerve, huh?

The reasonable argument is "Don't eliminate useful tags that people that people search for." Do you mean TWYS or do you not mean TWYS?

lonelylupine said:
Touched a nerve, huh?

The reasonable argument is "Don't eliminate useful tags that people that people search for." Do you mean TWYS or do you not mean TWYS?

An aggressive message received an aggressive response.

This isn't really about TWYS. You are right in that we aren't really consistent with basic body part tags. Some tags are considered worth using, while others are not.
I have not investigated the older debates regarding this specific tag, so I'm not ready to share my opinion just yet.
I just don't want this thread to devolve into a shouting argument. That's just not productive.

bitwolfy said:
An aggressive message received an aggressive response.

This isn't really about TWYS. You are right in that we aren't really consistent with basic body part tags. Some tags are considered worth using, while others are not.
I have not investigated the older debates regarding this specific tag, so I'm not ready to share my opinion just yet.
I just don't want this thread to devolve into a shouting argument. That's just not productive.

My stance is, if its a focal point that some individuals focus on, why is it not searchable in the tag cloud?

We had a user who spent ages individually (and correctly) tagging the armpit tag for themselves and others into the feature. And then it was arbitrarily decided by a single admin to be too Broad in its use that Once again much like the Kangaroo thread brought up before Ratte followed up that they believed the tag was useless. NMNY agreed because there was argument forming on what defined an Armpit to be tagged, but the other reasons for doing so were flimsy and or personal.

That would be like suddenly saying "we are no longer allowing the tag Feet" because its too "nebulous". Does it mean you tag paws or feet only when theyre the focus? Or all the time. Under tag what you see, if a foot is in an image it can and or should be tagged. But it was for this very nebulousness that the armpit tag was deleted.

It all feels really meaningless.

bitwolfy said:
An aggressive message received an aggressive response.

This isn't really about TWYS. You are right in that we aren't really consistent with basic body part tags. Some tags are considered worth using, while others are not.
I have not investigated the older debates regarding this specific tag, so I'm not ready to share my opinion just yet.
I just don't want this thread to devolve into a shouting argument. That's just not productive.

Bitwolfy, you're a new Admin so you are fresh out the gate, maybe you can be reasonable and ACTUALLY SEE why armpit tag is beneficial as I stated above.
I brought this to attention a while ago too but the admins Locked my thread. Nobody would see my point of view and were so stubborn with their biases.
It was literally ONE admin who made the lone decision and the rest just followed suit
what the hell is up with that?!

demesejha said:
My stance is, if its a focal point that some individuals focus on, why is it not searchable in the tag cloud?

We had a user who spent ages individually (and correctly) tagging the armpit tag for themselves and others into the feature. And then it was arbitrarily decided by a single admin to be too Broad in its use that Once again much like the Kangaroo thread brought up before Ratte followed up that they believed the tag was useless. NMNY agreed because there was argument forming on what defined an Armpit to be tagged, but the other reasons for doing so were flimsy and or personal.

That would be like suddenly saying "we are no longer allowing the tag Feet" because its too "nebulous". Does it mean you tag paws or feet only when theyre the focus? Or all the time. Under tag what you see, if a foot is in an image it can and or should be tagged. But it was for this very nebulousness that the armpit tag was deleted.

It all feels really meaningless.

exactly, they were being a little harsh with Armpit. It was unfair with no consideration for those who use the tag.

maybe "open_armpit" or "exposed_armpit", to make it more clear it isn't for any armpit? or "prominent_armpit"?

a post like this is pretty clear as to what it shows
post #3280141

I think armpit would be a valid tag for images where an armpit is visible. Of course "everyone has armpits", so the tag should really just be used when there is a clear view to the armpit – even if the character was nude this tag should not be used, if the armpits cannot be seen. (TWYS)

This should be basic easy to validate in a posting. Certainly, there will be difficult judgement cases for simple character designs, where the arm is just a cylinder and thus there isn't actually a pit at the joint: No armpit. But in the middle ground it is not necessarily easy to say. This, however, applies to most all tags, apart from some technical metatags, like flash.

The bulk update request #3634 is active.

remove alias armpit (1) -> invalid_tag (1)
remove alias armpits (3) -> invalid_tag (1)

Reason: Might as well put it to a vote. I'm aware this doesn't mean that the unalias definitely will or won't happen regardless of the results, but people will be able to voice their opinion without needing to comment.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3634 (forum #351204) has been approved by @slyroon.

strikerman said:
The bulk update request #3634 is active.

remove alias armpit (1) -> invalid_tag (1)
remove alias armpits (3) -> invalid_tag (1)

Reason: Might as well put it to a vote. I'm aware this doesn't mean that the unalias definitely will or won't happen regardless of the results, but people will be able to voice their opinion without needing to comment.

Mixed thoughts on just armpit as the tag. I think the suggestion of open or exposed armpit fits better, but I guess I would okay if armpit would be brought back instead if that's what others want.

strikerman said:
The bulk update request #3634 is active.

remove alias armpit (1) -> invalid_tag (1)
remove alias armpits (3) -> invalid_tag (1)

Reason: Might as well put it to a vote. I'm aware this doesn't mean that the unalias definitely will or won't happen regardless of the results, but people will be able to voice their opinion without needing to comment.

WOW It took this long to put this to a vote FINALLY after so many years?
How many "Bring back the armpits tag" topic sprung up in the meantime? Like 50, including my own?

feels like it's not going to get much attention if it's not its own post, but that's just my opinion

post #2802066

Hey guys. Not gonna lie, I didn't read all this. But I can provide some context to the decision.

I killed the tag. Admittedly, I did it prematurely, but we'll get to that part in a second.

The tag was mostly populated by this user, whose motivation was killed when I destroyed their pet project with a few clicks. Credit where credit is due: that level of dedication is impressive. However, the criteria for when armpit got tagged was, uh, generous. Which we could and should have talked to them about more than we did. When a tag applies to basically every post, it loses its value as a search term. It's why tail is invalidated, yet its more specific variants are not. In a similar vein, that's why the armpit fetish tags still exist, but armpit itself is nuked.

I cannot exaggerate how frequently it was tagged, during a time when we had a fraction of the posts we have now. Again, we should have communicated more.

There are two reasons why I shouldn't have invalidated it with zero warning.

• Sets get zero love. It would have been trivial for everyone to pitch in and transfer every armpit post into one set, thus preserving all that work for future consideration.
• I don't care what anyone, including myself, thinks of the merit of all that work done. When you find a self-starter like that, you need to do everything in your power to keep that talent. With sets, we could have reached a compromise.

Lessons learned.

I personally don't think it needs to be reinstated. The other armpit fetish tags work well enough on their own, and there are plenty of tricks you can use to see posts which weren't intended as armpit fetish content, such as raised_arms and other pose or point-of-view tags.

Never say never, though. This site's tagging culture is fascinating.

Hope that answers some questions, maybe provides some new insight. I'm surprised nobody looked up who made the decision, and tried to contact me.

EDIT - I mean, I see now that the original thread was linked. I meant it when I said I didn't read all this. I was just looking for another thread and happened to notice this one.

I don't mind the tag coming back, but what kind of pictures can you not find at the moment with the current armpit related tags? It's not my thing so I don't know the nuances here. I'd be worried about the tag itself being overused and then essentially becoming useless, but wiki descriptions of when the tag should be used and bopping people who're putting it everywhere should solve that. Exposed_armpit or something akin to that also sounds like it'd work well.

Exposed_x tends to mean a presence of clothing that should be covering x, but are not serving their purpose (due to being torn or pulled aside). exposed_breasts

We COULD use bare_armpit as we do bare_breasts.

urielfrys said:
I think armpit would be a valid tag for images where an armpit is visible. Of course "everyone has armpits", so the tag should really just be used when there is a clear view to the armpit – even if the character was nude this tag should not be used, if the armpits cannot be seen. (TWYS)

Perhaps it'd be better to have/work with an armpit_focus tag. Since it's the case that "everyone has armpits", and it's the case that quite a few images may have just the barest view of it that, if taken to its logical conclusion, would cause the tag would apply to the vast majority of images on this site. That would make it practically useless, like eyes or arm. To say nothing of simplified drawings that people would fight over whether they actually contain armpits or not. Instead, an armpit_focus tag would make it clearer that there's an apparent focus on the presence of armpits, which would help constrain its use to more prominent cases that people would want to find or blacklist, instead of incidental views or simple stylizations.

knotty_curls said:
Hey guys. Not gonna lie, I didn't read all this. But I can provide some context to the decision.

I killed the tag. Admittedly, I did it prematurely, but we'll get to that part in a second.

The tag was mostly populated by this user, whose motivation was killed when I destroyed their pet project with a few clicks. Credit where credit is due: that level of dedication is impressive. However, the criteria for when armpit got tagged was, uh, generous. Which we could and should have talked to them about more than we did. When a tag applies to basically every post, it loses its value as a search term. It's why tail is invalidated, yet its more specific variants are not. In a similar vein, that's why the armpit fetish tags still exist, but armpit itself is nuked.

I cannot exaggerate how frequently it was tagged, during a time when we had a fraction of the posts we have now. Again, we should have communicated more.

There are two reasons why I shouldn't have invalidated it with zero warning.

• Sets get zero love. It would have been trivial for everyone to pitch in and transfer every armpit post into one set, thus preserving all that work for future consideration.
• I don't care what anyone, including myself, thinks of the merit of all that work done. When you find a self-starter like that, you need to do everything in your power to keep that talent. With sets, we could have reached a compromise.

Lessons learned.

I personally don't think it needs to be reinstated. The other armpit fetish tags work well enough on their own, and there are plenty of tricks you can use to see posts which weren't intended as armpit fetish content, such as raised_arms and other pose or point-of-view tags.

Never say never, though. This site's tagging culture is fascinating.

Hope that answers some questions, maybe provides some new insight. I'm surprised nobody looked up who made the decision, and tried to contact me.

EDIT - I mean, I see now that the original thread was linked. I meant it when I said I didn't read all this. I was just looking for another thread and happened to notice this one.

Oh so you finally opened your eyes?

People. Like. Their. Armpit. Tag!
Tagging culture on e6 is very real and very vocal.

E621 has the best tagging of any image archive site I’ve ever encounter, due to a combination of the mechanics of the tagging system itself and the tagging culture of its users. So I think it would be a shame if such a prominent kink as armpits had no general tag, even if it isn’t personally my thing.

It would require some selectivity in its application, of course, lest it become like feet, where half the images are just “yup, there sure are feet in this picture”, but surely that’s a small price to pay for thoroughness.

vulpes_artifex said:
E621 has the best tagging of any image archive site I’ve ever encounter, due to a combination of the mechanics of the tagging system itself and the tagging culture of its users. So I think it would be a shame if such a prominent kink as armpits had no general tag, even if it isn’t personally my thing.

There is armpit_fetish for armpits being fetishized. And though it's not used much right now, there is also armpit_focus that doesn't have to require the armpits to be fetishized in a picture, while also being a bit more than "yup, you can just barely see under their arm", so armpits itself can stay as it is.

watsit said:
There is armpit_fetish for armpits being fetishized. And though it's not used much right now, there is also armpit_focus that doesn't have to require the armpits to be fetishized in a picture, while also being a bit more than "yup, you can just barely see under their arm", so armpits itself can stay as it is.

Sure, but I think there should be a tag for armpits that, while not necessarily the focus of the image, are featured prominently enough for those who are into them to turn their crank to it.

Like, consider this image from earlier in the thread:
post #3280141
Don’t you think an armpit enthusiast should be able to find this image, even though it’s not really focused on the armpit?

vulpes_artifex said:
Don’t you think an armpit enthusiast should be able to find this image, even though it’s not really focused on the armpit?

Raised arm would help people find images like that. Considering the armpit isn't at all detailed, nor is a particularly strong focus, I don't think we should try guessing what an armpit enthusiast would like when it's not specifically fetishized.

watsit said:
Raised arm would help people find images like that.

Maybe, but there'd be a lot of other posts to wade through. A raised arm doesn't mean that the armpit will be in full view.

post #3745064 post #3743225 post #3741928 post #3741810 post #3734568

vulpes_artifex said:
Like, consider this image from earlier in the thread:
post #3280141
Don’t you think an armpit enthusiast should be able to find this image, even though it’s not really focused on the armpit?

I don't really see a pit there under the arm. It's not drawn, so it shouldn't be tagged.

post #509

Here's an armpit depicted, at least under the arm that is less raised.

watsit said:
There is armpit_fetish for armpits being fetishized. And though it's not used much right now, there is also armpit_focus that doesn't have to require the armpits to be fetishized in a picture, while also being a bit more than "yup, you can just barely see under their arm", so armpits itself can stay as it is.

Maybe some people, like ME, don't want armpit fetish or armpit focus

maybe some people LIKE ME, just want to see a really good armpit with an overall good aesthetic art that's more than just a particular interest.
What you suggest doesn't cover that and you fail to see that raised arm tag doesn't quite provide the niche some enthusiasts are looking for.
sweet cheese and crackers!

I await Armpit tag restoration as it should be, all things balanced!

closetpossum said:
maybe some people LIKE ME, just want to see a really good armpit with an overall good aesthetic art that's more than just a particular interest.

Then you're going to have a fight either way. If you want to see "a really good armpit with an overall good aesthetic art that's more than just a particular interest", then there has to be more than an armpit simply being barely visible in the image. A post tagged armpit wouldn't say anything about how good or bad an armpit is, or how visible it is, just that you can point to it and say "yup, that's an armpit" (which some people may or may not still argue over whether it really counts depending on how simple the artwork is or how clearly that area is visible). There would be far more posts tagged armpit making it nearly impossible to find "a really good armpit with an overall good aesthetic art that's more than just a particular interest". An armpit_focus tag would be for when it's "more than just a particular interest", not requiring it to be hitting fetish territory, and by being a focus of the image, you can generally expect the artist to have put a bit more effort into drawing it better than if it was just incidentally there.

watsit said:
Then you're going to have a fight either way. If you want to see "a really good armpit with an overall good aesthetic art that's more than just a particular interest", then there has to be more than an armpit simply being barely visible in the image. A post tagged armpit wouldn't say anything about how good or bad an armpit is, or how visible it is, just that you can point to it and say "yup, that's an armpit" (which some people may or may not still argue over whether it really counts depending on how simple the artwork is or how clearly that area is visible). There would be far more posts tagged armpit making it nearly impossible to find "a really good armpit with an overall good aesthetic art that's more than just a particular interest". An armpit_focus tag would be for when it's "more than just a particular interest", not requiring it to be hitting fetish territory, and by being a focus of the image, you can generally expect the artist to have put a bit more effort into drawing it better than if it was just incidentally there.

it's basically the same thing with the feet tag.

It's just feet, no fetish, no focus

I swear it's hypocritical to have certain bodypart tags and exclude armpit. This point has also been brought up numerous times.
You're making it redundant and harder than it sounds when it's so easy cause it depend on someone's taste.

closetpossum said:
it's basically the same thing with the feet tag.

It's just feet, no fetish, no focus

I swear it's hypocritical to have certain bodypart tags and exclude armpit. This point has also been brought up numerous times.
You're making it redundant and harder than it sounds when it's so easy cause it depend on someone's taste.

To be fair, the feet tag is probably needed to dinstinguish between paws/hooves/feet, because they're usually exclusive to X species. A bipedal anthro can have any of those or even a combination of those, like a chimera or discord_(mlp)

But armpits... can we say that ferals have armpits? The criteria for defyning armpits is: "the area under the arms" or does it require "the presence of specific hair that grows in that area" or "the presence of an area where sweat glands are present", or "the presence of drawn lines depicting the existance of a cavitated area in the skin underneath the arms"?

Do ferals have arms? Or just legs? Should we call them Legpits?

I still agree with the revalidation of the tag for no particular reason, I just don't quite understand yet the usage of this tag. Like... in example, you want to search armpits, but only for art-appreciation purposes, and as such, armpit_fetish does not work for this. But what about the exposed_armpit tag?

m3g4p0n1 said:
But what about the exposed_armpit tag?

It won't cover all cases, as mentioned earlier:

urielfrys said:
Exposed_x tends to mean a presence of clothing that should be covering x, but are not serving their purpose (due to being torn or pulled aside). exposed_breasts

That tag wouldn't apply to a nude character, or a character wearing something that's not trying to cover armpits.

The problem is people ultimately just want an armpits_i_like tag. But there's no objective criteria to tagging "good armpits" since it's a subjective measure, so you either tag them all (making the tag useless by applying to anything, no matter how visible, good or bad, which will be the vast majority of posts), or need to have some objective criteria, like it being a focus of the image, or being fetishized.

watsit said:
It won't cover all cases, as mentioned earlier:
That tag wouldn't apply to a nude character, or a character wearing something that's not trying to cover armpits.

The problem is people ultimately just want an armpits_i_like tag. But there's no objective criteria to tagging "good armpits" since it's a subjective measure, so you either tag them all (making the tag useless by applying to anything, no matter how visible, good or bad, which will be the vast majority of posts), or need to have some objective criteria, like it being a focus of the image, or being fetishized.

I see, hmm...
armpit_focus doesn't work because it's not always the focus. armpit_fetish doesn't work because it's not always sexual exposed_armpit doesn't work because it's only for armpits that should be covered, but aren't.

In this case, how about a "tasteful_armpit_presentation" or "casual_armpit_exposure" tag, or something similar? The way I understand it, the desire for this tag is for artistic appreciation, which falls under tastefull or casual_exposure, I think.
If casual_exposure is, according to the wiki, the clothed version of casual_nudity, then casual_armpit_exposure could be a in-between tag for specification purposes, which may lead to other casual_(bodypart)_exposure tags. Similar to how we have presenting_(bodypart) tag, which, as far as I'm aware, are always lustful focused.

Should these suggested tags be agreed upon, then we could start a tagging project that goes along the lines of casual_armpit_exposure -casual_exposure -casual_nudity, and see which "casual" tag should go along.
And maybe another for casual_armpit_exposure ~armpit_fetish ~armpit_focus, given the casual tag ideally should not be used with the others.

watsit said:
It won't cover all cases, as mentioned earlier:
That tag wouldn't apply to a nude character, or a character wearing something that's not trying to cover armpits.

The problem is people ultimately just want an armpits_i_like tag. But there's no objective criteria to tagging "good armpits" since it's a subjective measure, so you either tag them all (making the tag useless by applying to anything, no matter how visible, good or bad, which will be the vast majority of posts), or need to have some objective criteria, like it being a focus of the image, or being fetishized.

but that's the SAME as the feet tag. Do you think people honestly tag feet just because the character has feet?
Taggers are obviously using the feet tag as feet_i_like

And I'm not trying to out the feet tag, I LOVE that tag. But everything you're saying can be applied to the feet tag too and it baffles me.
If we have a feet tag we should have an armpit tag.

feet is used by people to tag feets in general. We should reinstate the armpit tag to be used as "armpits in general" It's so clear.

post #2187031

what is your beef with armpits Watsit, holy hell. Let the armpit people be happy!

m3g4p0n1 said:
To be fair, the feet tag is probably needed to dinstinguish between paws/hooves/feet, because they're usually exclusive to X species. A bipedal anthro can have any of those or even a combination of those, like a chimera or discord_(mlp)

But armpits... can we say that ferals have armpits? The criteria for defyning armpits is: "the area under the arms" or does it require "the presence of specific hair that grows in that area" or "the presence of an area where sweat glands are present", or "the presence of drawn lines depicting the existance of a cavitated area in the skin underneath the arms"?

Do ferals have arms? Or just legs? Should we call them Legpits?

I still agree with the revalidation of the tag for no particular reason, I just don't quite understand yet the usage of this tag. Like... in example, you want to search armpits, but only for art-appreciation purposes, and as such, armpit_fetish does not work for this. But what about the exposed_armpit tag?

Technically ferals have armpits. Their forelimbs are comprised of the same bones found in a bipedal's arms. They are technically arms and they do have shoulders so yes they have armpits.

strikerman said:
The bulk update request #3634 is active.

remove alias armpit (1) -> invalid_tag (1)
remove alias armpits (3) -> invalid_tag (1)

Reason: Might as well put it to a vote. I'm aware this doesn't mean that the unalias definitely will or won't happen regardless of the results, but people will be able to voice their opinion without needing to comment.

Bump. Unaliasing it from invalid tag seems to have gathered quite a bit of support, but I wonder what should be done with it afterwards

snpthecat said:
Bump. Unaliasing it from invalid tag seems to have gathered quite a bit of support, but I wonder what should be done with it afterwards

Probably just moved into the invalid category, with the likes of legs, eyes, nose, etc

The bulk update request #3634 (forum #351204) has been approved by @slyroon.

What was the point of unaliasing it just to move it to the invalid category? Numerous reasons were given why it was a valid search term.

It's odd how feet is valid, but not any other limb. How are feet special?

wolfmanfur said:
It's odd how feet is valid, but not any other limb. How are feet special?

Have you ever heard of somebody with a hand fetish?

wolfmanfur said:
It's odd how feet is valid, but not any other limb. How are feet special?

Your avatar perfectly explains why feet are special

faucet said:
Have you ever heard of somebody with a hand fetish?

I did. folks have a fetish for armpits too and its invalid.

faucet said:
Have you ever heard of somebody with a hand fetish?

post #4055993

faucet said:
Have you ever heard of somebody with a hand fetish?

actually yes lol