It is said in the muscles wiki page that is for "Pictures depicting very muscular characters".

In this case, when should the big_muscles tag be used? Should we just alias both or should the muscles tag be used for all muscular characters?

+1 Alias

"Big_muscles" is not distinct from "muscles".

If that is the case the implication should be deleted and an alias should be created

Wasn't muscles meant for 'regular' prominent muscles and big_muscles for the real bodybuilder-level bara stuff, the sort of build that can almost be edging on hyper at times?

I wanted to sort this out before suggesting an alias / changing the wiki

Jugofthat said:
Wasn't muscles meant for 'regular' prominent muscles and big_muscles for the real bodybuilder-level bara stuff, the sort of build that can almost be edging on hyper at times?

That's what I thought as well.

Jugofthat said:
Wasn't muscles meant for 'regular' prominent muscles and big_muscles for the real bodybuilder-level bara stuff, the sort of build that can almost be edging on hyper at times?

It used to be like that, but recently it got turned into an umbrella tag for everything muscles-related. For instance, big_muscles is now implicated to it, in the same way as big_penis -> penis. The muscles don't even need to be prominent to be tagged with it: we also implicated flexing to it, and it's entirely possible to flex without being muscular.

The wiki needs to be updated. And 'course, there's a lot of taggers who don't follow the forums and still tag those the old way.

The big problem is that it seems like the whole muscle 'tag group' is all out of whack. Currently, Big_muscles implies muscles, but muscles as defined by the wiki is for characters of "very muscular" build and where the image focuses on the muscles. It also points to toned which is more or less what the muscular tag originally made me think of. Herein lies the hitch. Tags like flexing and pecs all imply the muscles tag, but if you think about it anyone can flex, and a toned character can have nice abs and have them be the main focus of the image without being "muscly" as defined by the current wiki. I think that the verbiage is a bit part of the problem right now, as I'm sure that the muscles tag is used when "hey, this guy has muscles, lets tag that." I think changing a few names around, and un-implicating flexing and abs and stuff.

Proposal:
1. Leave toned as it is, for "athletic," but not "chiseled" builds. Like this post #524548
2. Change muscles to muscular, because it's confusing. The tag should give the idea that the image is all about a person who is muscular beyond normal, but not pushing hard against what's possible in the real world. Should be for very well defined muscles up to bodybuilder levels. Like this post #525884
3. Alias big_muscles to hyper_muscles, and have it be described as muscles beyond the realm of possibility. Like this post #500402
4. Un-implicate flexing and abs from muscular as it doesn't make much sense with the proposed definitions as previously stated.

Some possible problems:
The line between toned and muscular is very blurry, and I'm not sure if it's possible to come up with a good rule of thumb that we can all agree on, much less enforce. Many images have all of these tagged, like post #524956 and I bet that we'll have to start a project to fix them...

Tokaido said:
The big problem is that it seems like the whole muscle 'tag group' is all out of whack. Currently, Big_muscles implies muscles, but muscles as defined by the wiki is for characters of "very muscular" build and where the image focuses on the muscles. It also points to toned which is more or less what the muscular tag originally made me think of. Herein lies the hitch. Tags like flexing and pecs all imply the muscles tag, but if you think about it anyone can flex, and a toned character can have nice abs and have them be the main focus of the image without being "muscly" as defined by the current wiki. I think that the verbiage is a bit part of the problem right now, as I'm sure that the muscles tag is used when "hey, this guy has muscles, lets tag that." I think changing a few names around, and un-implicating flexing and abs and stuff.

Proposal:
1. Leave toned as it is, for "athletic," but not "chiseled" builds. Like this post #524548
2. Change muscles to muscular, because it's confusing. The tag should give the idea that the image is all about a person who is muscular beyond normal, but not pushing hard against what's possible in the real world. Should be for very well defined muscles up to bodybuilder levels. Like this post #525884
3. Alias big_muscles to hyper_muscles, and have it be described as muscles beyond the realm of possibility. Like this post #500402
4. Un-implicate flexing and abs from muscular as it doesn't make much sense with the proposed definitions as previously stated.

Some possible problems:
The line between toned and muscular is very blurry, and I'm not sure if it's possible to come up with a good rule of thumb that we can all agree on, much less enforce. Many images have all of these tagged, like post #524956 and I bet that we'll have to start a project to fix them... is there way to make tag "exceptions?" Where if you have X tagged, you can't also have Y tagged since the two are mutually exclusive?

I think that's a fair assessment of the situation and a workable plan. Even with the exact line between toned and muscular still to iron out, I think this is usable and a much needed improvement over what we have currently. (I think the current system for muscles-related-tags is less a system and more a bunch of tags that were never reconciled with each other, just cropped up over time.) So it's just in dire need of being made into some workable system. Something like this one.

Tokaido said:
Proposal:
1. Leave toned as it is, for "athletic," but not "chiseled" builds. Like this post #524548
2. Change muscles to muscular, because it's confusing. The tag should give the idea that the image is all about a person who is muscular beyond normal, but not pushing hard against what's possible in the real world. Should be for very well defined muscles up to bodybuilder levels. Like this post #525884
3. Alias big_muscles to hyper_muscles, and have it be described as muscles beyond the realm of possibility. Like this post #500402
4. Un-implicate flexing and abs from muscular as it doesn't make much sense with the proposed definitions as previously stated.

Seems like a good plan.
I just wish we had had this discussion four months ago, before those implications got accepted. But most folks didn't seem to oppose it at the time, and one of the admins was pushing for it pretty hard. :/

It'd probably help a lot if we added some example thumbnails to the toned and muscular wiki entries, to demonstrate the difference.

I have big_muscles blacklisted and muscles whitelisted, some people are dumb with how they tag it. I think muscles should = toned personally and biceps should maybe alias with big_muscles.

boopboop said:
I have big_muscles blacklisted and muscles whitelisted, some people are dumb with how they tag it. I think muscles should = toned personally and biceps should maybe alias with big_muscles.

I'm OK with using whatever terms for the chars who are athletic but not bulky, toned or muscular, but I don't agree with biceps being implicated to big_muscles. A person with normal athletic build can flex and show off their biceps, it can even be the focus of the image, they don't have to by hyper muscular to do that. And I'm still thinking that big muscles should stand for ridiculously, unrealistically huge muscles.

+1 big Tokaido post.

Genjar said:
Seems like a good plan.
I just wish we had had this discussion four months ago, before those implications got accepted. But most folks didn't seem to oppose it at the time, and one of the admins was pushing for it pretty hard. :/

It'd probably help a lot if we added some example thumbnails to the toned and muscular wiki entries, to demonstrate the difference.

Where the hell was I during this conversation? I absolutely abhor 'bara' style muscular images, and I actually pushed hard to get big_muscles separated from simple muscles because of that, originally (and wasn't the only one, which is why we went ahead with it at the time). Sounds like something that got sneaked through, almost.