I'm a bit confused about the difference between the tags armpit_tuft and armpit_hair.

The armpit_tuft wiki says: "When a character has a noticable tuft of feathers or fur under their armpits. Not to be confused with armpit hair." and the armpit_hair tag wiki says: "This tag is used when a character (usually an anthro character) has a distinctive tuft of hair at the top of the arm, on the underside of the shoulder (armpits)."

Looking at the actual tag usage, I'm not actually seeing how armpit_tuft is any different from armpit_hair. It doesn't help that lot of posts have both tags, despite them apparently being mutually exclusive.

Am I just really dumb and missing something super obvious? (Likely)

It's a visual difference more than a textual one

Edit: After checking the wikis and recent examples for both, it's ridiculous that armpit_hair straight up says a tuft of hair

nin10dope said:
It's a visual difference more than a textual one

But what is the visual difference?

There can be a visual difference
You see that little bush as a tuft
If it's something like individually drawn hairs, then it's not a tuft

emionix said:
But what is the visual difference?

Essential armpit_tuft would be when a character's arm/shoulder area is covered in fur or feathers and the armpit has a little patch of fur or feathers of the same color, like post #5650401. Similar to chest_tuft or elbow_tuft, just on the armpit instead. armpit_hair would be a more distinctive patch of hair on the armpit, typically a different color or appearing more separate/distinct from any surround fur or feathers.

nin10dope said:
There can be a visual difference
You see that little bush as a tuft
If it's something like individually drawn hairs, then it's not a tuft

watsit said:
Essential armpit_tuft would be when a character's arm/shoulder area is covered in fur or feathers and the armpit has a little patch of fur or feathers of the same color, like post #5650401. Similar to chest_tuft or elbow_tuft, just on the armpit instead. armpit_hair would be a more distinctive patch of hair on the armpit, typically a different color or appearing more separate/distinct from any surround fur or feathers.

Okay, I understand that. I think that's true as well, and I would use the tags that way.

I'm still just a bit confused on why the armpit_hair wiki specifies that same thing (like in post #883223 linked on the wiki under "fluffy underarm fur") as a type of armpit_hair, and not an armpit_tuft. I think this is my biggest source of confusion, it makes the tags look like they have the same meaning, along with the tags in practice being mixed up with both kinds of hair/tuft.

emionix said:
Okay, I understand that. I think that's true as well, and I would use the tags that way.

I'm still just a bit confused on why the armpit_hair wiki specifies that same thing (like in post #883223 linked on the wiki under "fluffy underarm fur") as a type of armpit_hair, and not an armpit_tuft. I think this is my biggest source of confusion, it makes the tags look like they have the same meaning, along with the tags in practice being mixed up with both kinds of hair/tuft.

Poorly written wiki

nin10dope said:
Poorly written wiki

Yeah that clearly seems to be the case. I would offer to help out but I'm nervous about editing wikis for populated tags.

emionix said:
Yeah that clearly seems to be the case. I would offer to help out but I'm nervous about editing wikis for populated tags.

I'm not ;Y

nin10dope said:
I'm not ;Y

Are you offering to edit the wikis, then?

I'm going to go through the tags and do a bit of editing, now that I understand what the difference is.

emionix said:
Are you offering to edit the wikis, then?

I'm going to go through the tags and do a bit of editing, now that I understand what the difference is.

Yeah I changed up the intro of the armpit_hair wiki to better explain its relationship with tufts.

this now contradict what i was told by Versperus in dm on how to use tuft tags on my drawings. as example when tagging a tuft of body hair on the balls, this is separate from fur because its visually a tuft, so not having to be part of fur in same way with chest and armpit too. i think important difference is tuft is visual, every tuft is body hair but not all body hair is a tuft. if it is removed usage for those who dont have fur there, then there is no way to tag the visual difference for those who want to search for a visual tuft on non fur bodies.. like in my case i draw myself as dragon

nikki_sensei said:
this now contradict what i was told by Versperus in dm on how to use tuft tags on my drawings. as example when tagging a tuft of body hair on the balls, this is separate from fur because its visually a tuft, so not having to be part of fur in same way with chest and armpit too. i think important difference is tuft is visual, every tuft is body hair but not all body hair is a tuft. if it is removed usage for those who dont have fur there, then there is no way to tag the visual difference for those who want to search for a visual tuft on non fur bodies.. like in my case i draw myself as dragon

No offense but I can barely understand this. But it was already said that all tufts are hair but not all hair is tufts.

nin10dope said:
No offense but I can barely understand this. But it was already said that all tufts are hair but not all hair is tufts.

from what i see, with this tag edit you discuss to change it to only apply to fur? so not include scalie? because emionix was go on my drawings removing a tuft tag even though it applies from what i was told before by a moderator

since you couldnt understand i will also explain more, on wiki he changed this tag from "when a character..." to "when a furred or feathered character..." and then removed a tuft tag on my art that has the drawn version of me as a dragon. i was see this and then found this forum post, so i talked about how this not make sense to restrict to only furred. its still a tuft if a scalie has it, but it looks like emionix wants to change it

nikki_sensei said:
from what i see, with this tag edit you discuss to change it to only apply to fur? so not include scalie? because emionix was go on my drawings removing a tuft tag even though it applies from what i was told before by a moderator

since you couldnt understand i will also explain more, on wiki he changed this tag from "when a character..." to "when a furred or feathered character..." and then removed a tuft tag on my art that has the drawn version of me as a dragon. i was see this and then found this forum post, so i talked about how this not make sense to restrict to only furred. its still a tuft if a scalie has it, but it looks like emionix wants to change it

If you disagree with changes someone made to your posts, Report the post, select Tagging Abuse, and in the comment box explain what's wrong

Although I do agree with the notion that Emionix should not change the requirement parameters of a tag wiki while it is being actively discussed without a community sentiment to do so.

nin10dope said:
Although I do agree with the notion that Emionix should not change the requirement parameters of a tag wiki while it is being actively discussed without a community sentiment to do so.

???

I literally didn't.

I edited the wiki to be in line with what was discussed earlier in the thread. That's all.

emionix said:
???

I literally didn't.

I edited the wiki to be in line with what was discussed earlier in the thread. That's all.

Specifying that the character has to be feathered of furred is what I'm referring to, which is the change you made.

nin10dope said:
Specifying that the character has to be feathered of furred is what I'm referring to, which is the change you made.

How can there be a tuft of feathers or fur on a character with no feathers or fur?

I'm was just saying what Watsit said:

watsit said:
Essential armpit_tuft would be when a character's arm/shoulder area is covered in fur or feathers and the armpit has a little patch of fur or feathers of the same color, like post #5650401. Similar to chest_tuft or elbow_tuft, just on the armpit instead. armpit_hair would be a more distinctive patch of hair on the armpit, typically a different color or appearing more separate/distinct from any surround fur or feathers.

I'm so confused on how I'm wrong but Watsit isn't.

emionix said:
How can there be a tuft of feathers or fur on a character with no feathers or fur?

I'm was just saying what Watsit said:

I'm so confused on how I'm wrong but Watsit isn't.

I'll shoot you a message
But I was just saying that changing the wiki while discussing the tag is frowned upon (at least this wasn't an alias request)
I don't know if tuft is/should be exclusive to feather/furs

nin10dope said:
I'll shoot you a message
But I was just saying that changing the wiki while discussing the tag is frowned upon (at least this wasn't an alias request)
I don't know if tuft is/should be exclusive to feather/furs

I thought the discussion was over. The previous wiki was vague and made the tag seem redundant, the definition of the tag was clarified by an experienced user, I then went with that definition assuming it to be correct, edited the wiki and combed through the tag to bring the posts in line with the definition I was given.

If the version of the wiki I wrote sucks and needs to be rewritten, fine, I'm not good at wikis, and I was trying to be as clear as possible that armpit tuft is used when a character that already has, shall we say, non-scale integument in the upper arm, shoulder, and armpit area, and some of that non-scale integument sticks out in a fluffy tuft, while also being roughly the same color and texture as the surrounding non-scale integument, then it's the armpit_tuft tag, which is a subtype of armpit_hair. I also edited a part of the armpit_hair wiki where it shows the subtype that used to say "underarm fluff", which isn't a tag, to say "armpit tuft", which is a tag, and clarifies the actual difference between armpit tufts and other types of armpit hair.

I only did all of these things (and wasted over a day of my life) because I thought it was not only the correct thing to do but also helpful.

Also... I would not have done any of that if this was an alias request because an alias request is an actual attempt to fundamentally change a tag, rather than (what I thought I was doing) clarification and cleanup.

emionix said:
I thought the discussion was over. The previous wiki was vague and made the tag seem redundant, the definition of the tag was clarified by an experienced user, I then went with that definition assuming it to be correct, edited the wiki and combed through the tag to bring the posts in line with the definition I was given.

If the version of the wiki I wrote sucks and needs to be rewritten, fine, I'm not good at wikis, and I was trying to be as clear as possible that armpit tuft is used when a character that already has, shall we say, non-scale integument in the upper arm, shoulder, and armpit area, and some of that non-scale integument sticks out in a fluffy tuft, while also being roughly the same color and texture as the surrounding non-scale integument, then it's the armpit_tuft tag, which is a subtype of armpit_hair. I also edited a part of the armpit_hair wiki where it shows the subtype that used to say "underarm fluff", which isn't a tag, to say "armpit tuft", which is a tag, and clarifies the actual difference between armpit tufts and other types of armpit hair.

I only did all of these things (and wasted over a day of my life) because I thought it was not only the correct thing to do but also helpful.

Also... I would not have done any of that if this was an alias request because an alias request is an actual attempt to fundamentally change a tag, rather than (what I thought I was doing) clarification and cleanup.

It doesn't suck, so you don't have to worry about your writing skills :P
But I figured tuft could apply to scalies and humanoids too

nin10dope said:
It doesn't suck, so you don't have to worry about your writing skills :P
But I figured tuft could apply to scalies and humanoids too

It does apply... if they have fluff in their arm, upper arm, armpit area. That's what I consider to be furred/feathered, though. My interpretation of those terms may not be correct, I'm not sure.

post #5494128 tufts all over their body, the armpit is the same color as the surrounding stuff, so it fits
post #4431280 fluffy in many places, armpit is the same color with slightly long fluff
post #4154855 same thing here

This tag was very small even before I edited a single post in it. So the amount of scalies and humanoids was already small. The biggest problem with the tag is that it has been used as armpit_hair 2 with a significant number of images being very muscular characters with body hair in the typical places, that is obviously drawn as highly distinct and separate from the surrounding body surface, while the intent of the tag is to denote tufts of existing integument that are sticking out, as opposed to a full armpit bush. I did not discriminate based on species but based on the appearance of each character's body in each image. I also did not add the tag to posts because I was searching exclusively through the armpit_tuft tag. There are certainly many posts that need the tag but do not currently have it, and there are certainly scalies and humanoids in there too. I do have plans to add the tag to posts that already exist in the armpit_hair tag, but that's a very extensive task and will require setup.

If the wiki being worded the way that it is isn't clear enough, I'm perfectly fine with an alternative being put in place. I just noticed so many uses of the tag that weren't in line with the definition I was given, I thought that clarifying that the character should have fluff already present on the body would help. Many characters just have skin or highly ambiguous integument (fluff in some areas, but not in others... maybe.), such as post #5456732, post #5398946, or post #2414496 and while I left several of these in the tag, I wouldn't have added it if it weren't there to begin with.

it applies to others like scalie if its also drawn as a literal tuft how i have it, so not only tuft of fur but also visually a tuft of body hair, at least from what i was told by versperus in dm when he tell me how to tag relating to tufts on my drawings. so i try make a point in my first comment that if this is changed to not allow it.. then people who want to search for a tuft on non furred have no way to do it, this is useful tag

nikki_sensei said:
it applies to others like scalie if its also drawn as a literal tuft how i have it, so not only tuft of fur but also visually a tuft of body hair, at least from what i was told by versperus in dm when he tell me how to tag relating to tufts on my drawings. so i try make a point in my first comment that if this is changed to not allow it.. then people who want to search for a tuft on non furred have no way to do it, this is useful tag

I wish you would give what Versperus said as a quote, that would be very helpful here. I was not aware in any way of what was said in your DMs, only what was said in this thread. I removed the tags from your posts based on the definition that I was given, in this thread, which I do view as the correct definition, but I had no way of knowing at that point why the tag was on any of the posts to begin with. I can see you re-added the tag to your posts and I am not going to remove it again because it really isn't that important to me. The tag itself is not going anywhere, I removed it from a lot of posts because they don't fall in line with the definition I was given.

Also, a person can look up scalie scales armpit_hair for characters who have both scales and armpit hair.