I noticed a recently created wiggling toes tag today. Since it lacks a wiki, what it means is anyone's guess. To me, "wiggling" implies motion, but none of the posts with this tag are animated or have motion lines. Instead, what you get are loads and loads of images with a focus on feet but nothing resembling any sort of wiggling action at all, like post #511469, post #944568, post #2066671, post #2222902, and so on. Those posts with any sort of toe-flexing at all are already covered by toe scrunch (post #154601, post #767309) and spread toes (post #1426892, post #2027174).

Given that this appears to be for all intents and purposes a favorites tag for @ChurchOfGodard, would anyone else have an objection to simply purging it? As it stands, the tag doesn't seem to have any meaningful use. We already have enough tags to describe actions involving toes.

I don't think we should purge it entirely, but we should retag the posts that don't imply motion

As long as there are no motion_lines I see no use of this either. The other example is when the post is animated of course. So a little bit of tag gardening for those posts were motion isn't visible.

It could also be useful for toes in a position that can only be reached while wiggling even if there are no motion lines or animation I guess? post #944568 may be a case of this but it isn't exactly easy to judge.

edit: post #2200978 seems a definite example of this with her left foot.

Plus you can have comic situations which show the toes being wiggled from one panel to the next.

We should at least allow @ChurchOfGodard the opportunity to move these to a personal favgroup before untagging anything. Things like this are why favgroups were created.

kuuderes_shadow said:

It could also be useful for toes in a position that can only be reached while wiggling even if there are no motion lines or animation I guess? post #944568 may be a case of this but it isn't exactly easy to judge.

edit: post #2200978 seems a definite example of this with her left foot.

Plus you can have comic situations which show the toes being wiggled from one panel to the next.

Looks more like toe_scrunch to me.

I don't see a common pattern in the tag, aside from being a copy of the existing toes. There's already tags like toe_scrunch and spread_toes if you want some motion to your toes.

I'll give it a week for the user to move the posts to a favgroup before purging the tag.

I looked through the tag and couldn't find a single post with motion lines, so no protests from me

I was genuinely surprised that this tag needed to be made, and even more surprised that people are objecting to it

Toe_scrunch as I understand it refers to, well, the act of scrunching the toes up so they are all curled in the same direction (and I found I had to add a number of these tags as well), while toe_spread refers to the act of fanning them out. Neither of those tags properly fits the hundreds of images that seem to display "active" wiggling, with the toes, for instance, pointed in three different directions at once ("motion lines" are irrelevant and unnecessary, just as they would be for a person walking, for the "active moving" is readily apparent). I searched for an alternate tag because I "knew" this was important enough to have been covered previously and, as I said, I was surprised I had to make one myself.

Although I think the distinction is important enough that many people would like to be able to parse out one set of pictures from another, if people really want it gone, I guess I'm at a genuine loss.

(I had to chuckle at the idea of a "fav pictures" pool; many of the pictures I tagged are not things I would ever care to see again.)

I don't see any active wiggling under wiggling_toes, I just see a bunch of slightly curled toes. I would say use curled toes for this, but that was aliased to toe scrunch without discussion (topic #5859, topic #7190). Perhaps it shouldn't be aliased? I'm not sure.

ChurchOfGodard said:

Toe_scrunch as I understand it refers to, well, the act of scrunching the toes up so they are all curled in the same direction (and I found I had to add a number of these tags as well), while toe_spread refers to the act of fanning them out. Neither of those tags properly fits the hundreds of images that seem to display "active" wiggling, with the toes, for instance, pointed in three different directions at once ("motion lines" are irrelevant and unnecessary, just as they would be for a person walking, for the "active moving" is readily apparent). I searched for an alternate tag because I "knew" this was important enough to have been covered previously and, as I said, I was surprised I had to make one myself.

Among the posts tagged wiggling toes, there's hardly any apparent "active moving" whatsoever. Poses like in post #2027174 look completely static. I've looked at that image several times now and still have no idea where you're seeing any sign of movement. At some point, as with walking, taggers have to make reasonable assumptions based on what they see and on context, but for the vast majority of wiggling toes, any evidence of motion is so subtle that the tag becomes subject to individual bias.

Now, if you wanted to rename this tag to something not using the word "wiggling" (which, to my knowledge, is usually taken to mean rapid back-and-forth motion), there might still be room for a viable tag. If, for instance, toe scrunch doesn't fit post #2200978 since not all the toes are curled, something like partial toe scrunch might work, and nobody will care whether the toes seem to be moving or not. I'm not sure if this distinction between "all toes curled" and "most toes curled" is important enough to justify creating and maintaining a new tag, though; particular toe positions are a fairly niche interest, aren't they? Personally, I'd be satisfied with amending the toe scrunch wiki to be inclusive of cases like that one, but other users may see things differently.

You're actually completely right that a number of tagged pictures, maybe 30%, don't quite belong...under any of the three available tags; even if the "most correct" course of action would be either to ignore them or conceive a fourth tag, it felt uncomfortably wrong to do either, and I was expecting a max of 60/70 images all told, not the possibility of a thousand. For what it's worth, I think the "partial scrunch" idea could be the best possible tag for the images that don't fit.

I expected one of those images to be an absolutely fair sticking point, but...no, the two images here are actually both perfect fits for the tag. I guess the old saying that says "You can only ever have a discussion with someone with whom you are in agreement" is pretty true, for I can't conceive of how anyone could describe the image you linked as "completely static"; I guess you could argue that it's static in the sense that it's an actual "still frame", but... After a brief one second glance, I can state unequivocally that the girl is not only moving her toes, but her legs as well. Now, is she rocking her legs back and forth or in a circular motion, that, I'm not smart enough to know...but the motion itself is undeniable. If the "camera" that took this shot took another a second later, the positional difference would be undeniable. I'm being completely serious when I say the "obvious" (to me) motion itself is why the tag is so important.

But aside that, you seem to be suggesting that someone has contorted parts of their body into a position that and is (naturally, I guess) holding it so completely, utterly stiff, which I have a hard time wrapping my head around. That's...incredibly painful, to say the least.

It's worth pointing out that there are other tags of things that involve movement but where in the vast majority of cases no movement is directly indicated on the image, like walking.