Done.
Posted under General
parasol said:
Was that supposed to be an alias, or an implication?
Alias. Read the wiki page for feet.
No, I'm... not so sure. I think it was meant to be an implication.
all pov_feet are feet, but not all feet are pov_feet. Now whether or not we need the pov_feet tag is another issue, but assuming we keep it, it should have been implicated. I think this was a mix of 葉月 clicking the wrong thing and albert going along with it accidentally... something I've nearly done multiple times.
IMO, no. Actually the whole idea of a pov tag is sort of questionable in my view. At least it should be called something other than pov, which makes no sense. Maybe first-person? If it's really meant to represent posts in which the point of view is arguably attached to someone in the scene (who is not visible or not fully visible), then pretty much any random post in which at least one's character's eyes are directed towards the point of view could be tagged as pov. Examples include post #386005, post #386003, post #386002, post #386001, post #386000, post #385998, post #385997, post #385996, post #385995, and post #358994, and those are all just in the most recent page of uploads.
FAKE EDIT: Oh, looks like the wiki entry for pov has changed since I last checked. One "Amun-Ra" has unilaterally added a suggestion about how the tag should be used. Maybe we should enforce that? For those too lazy to go read the wiki, the suggestion is that pov posts must contain a visible portion of the person whose point of view the image is supposedly taking.
EDIT: And I still think pov should be changed to first-person.
RaisingK said: Do we really need to distinquish pov feet from "images in which one of the focuses is the girl's feet", though?
Again, I wasn't addressing that question. I was just saying that as used at the time, they were different tags and thus if we were keeping pov_feet, it would have been an implication not an alias.
Aliasing them is the same as saying "we will no longer use this tag", which 葉月 never explicitly asked for. We can certainly discuss dropping pov_feet, but we're also doing it after it's already been dropped.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other about the pov tags. I've never used them myself. If we don't reinstate pov_feet, I won't mind.
RaisingK said:
Do we really need to distinquish pov feet from "images in which one of the focuses is the girl's feet", though?
There are ~5000 feet posts. Once a tag gets that big I think having specific tags like pov_feet is worthwhile.
pov_feet is probably a bad name for it though. Most of the time it's just feet pointed at the camera, but it's not necessarily implied that you're viewing the picture from some other person's point of view.
I think it'd be more useful if it referred to foreshortening of feet or something like that. Like, if we do it at all, get a tag for post #133618 (note, was tagged pov_feet until the alias) to distinguish it from the many images tagged feet that really have no special focus on the feet at all.