Currently we have:

• muscles
• big_muscles
• hyper_muscles

However, out of habit people have picked up huge_muscles (currently over 700 posts).

Normally, it would go (small)->normal->big->huge->hyper, however, hyper_muscles is just implicated to big_muscles right now. We could shove huge_muscles between them, but I'd like to gather some opinions on whether that is necessary or wanted at this point, because I'm not sure why it was done this way. My guess is that muscles is one of the older tags and, quite simply, nobody noticed it isn't implicated yet.

Well, are there any clear boundaries between what is big, huge, and hyper?

Durandal said:
Well, are there any clear boundaries between what is big, huge, and hyper?

Is there ever? ;)

I feel like they should follow more/less the same borders we have with the other tag trees:

• muscles -> You can see them.
• big_muscles -> Noticeably large and defined, the basic shape of the character is not very different from a non-muscular character. Borders on "3d" muscles.
• huge_muscles -> Borders at the end of "realistically plausible" and stops there. Definitely "3d" muscles, veins are likely.
• hyper_muscles -> Unrealistic, and probably impractical.

However, the current wiki for muscles states this:

The muscles tag is NOT for tagging any visible musculature at all.

And I'm not exactly sure what to make of that.

I think mucular is supposed to fit where you rank muscles. theree's also toned and athletic.

edidaf said:
I think mucular is supposed to fit where you rank muscles. theree's also toned and athletic.

Muscular is aliased to muscles right now, and athletic isn't very widely used and seems to, at least partially, be used for sports.

As for toned, it should be noted that toned brings up 45 pages, and toned -muscles brings that number down to 5. While there can be multiple characters present skewing the results, much of what is left could probably be tagged muscles or even big_muscles instead, leaving me to believe that it isn't being used how it's defined.

I keep forgetting that huge_muscles isn't currently part of that tag group, mostly because I don't tag muscles often and it's the only exception. The other size tags chain through huge_*: huge_breasts, huge_penis, huge_balls, etc.

But we probably don't need that many size tiers for muscles, so I think huge_muscles could be aliased to big_muscles.

The problem is that to me muscle doesn't quite staggers the way body parts do because in sexual parts there is a clear range between "large, but relatively natural" and "full-on hyper", but that range is very poorly defined as far as muscle go and most of what's in huge_muscles is (to me) easily put in either big_ or hyper_ muscles (although I'll admit I have a low threshold for hyper muscles).

Most people would fondle them.

Wait, whut?