As proposed in forum #304645, the tag sulcus is currently being applied to posts featuring the coronal sulcus, the area of the penis right under the glans where the neck of the penis starts.
However, "sulcus" as a scientific term is usually used in reference to the furrows of the brain.
I wanted to propose a possible tag change from "sulcus" to "coronal sulcus" to avoid confusion. I would edit the wiki to more accurately reflect this change.
However, I also understand that tag overpopulation is a serious problem and that too many anatomical tags would bloat the site.
If "coronal sulcus" is too niche and scientific of a term, we could also consider the slightly-more-colloquial "neck of penis" as a potential candidate.
I wanted to make a forum post to gauge others' opinions on the matter before requesting an alias.

For what it's worth, "sulcus" could also refer to, among others, the "intermammary sulcus", better known as cleavage.

vulpes_artifex said:
For what it's worth, "sulcus" could also refer to, among others, the "intermammary sulcus", better known as cleavage.

Cleavage already has a populated tag and is generally a more commonly known term than "intermammary sulcus", so i'm not too worried about that.
Following the precedent set by this tag, maybe "neck of penis" really would be better than "coronal sulcus". More people would be able to draw some sort of conclusion about what the tag refers to and wouldn't have to look it up or pull up an anatomical diagram.
Maybe it would be better for me to go ahead and request the alias so more people see this.

The bulk update request #5396 is pending approval.

mass update sulcus -> coronal_sulcus

Reason: Sulcus is too vague of a tag name for such a specific part of the body. Changing the tag to coronal_sulcus will avoid potential confusion in the future.

I ultimately opted for "coronal sulcus" over "neck of penis" for the same reason that we have glans and perineum as opposed to "head of penis" and "taint".

garfieldfromgarfield said:
The bulk update request #5396 is pending approval.

mass update sulcus -> coronal_sulcus

Reason: Sulcus is too vague of a tag name for such a specific part of the body. Changing the tag to coronal_sulcus will avoid potential confusion in the future.

I ultimately opted for "coronal sulcus" over "neck of penis" for the same reason that we have glans and perineum as opposed to "head of penis" and "taint".

Glans and Perineum were already pretty well known terms, but I doubt a significant number of people would know coronal sulcus, so i guess that's the difference.

If this goes through, neck of penis should get aliased to it, and should sulcus get moved to invalid category or disambiguated? I don't think just leaving it to be used for the furrows of the brain would work well.

snpthecat said:
Glans and Perineum were already pretty well known terms, but I doubt a significant number of people would know coronal sulcus, so i guess that's the difference.

If this goes through, neck of penis should get aliased to it, and should sulcus get moved to invalid category or disambiguated? I don't think just leaving it to be used for the furrows of the brain would work well.

Maybe it would be better to have it disambiguated. If someone wants to tag a post containing brain furrows, they could probably use "brain sulcus" or "cerebral sulcus" or something similar.
Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe it would have been better for me to just alias sulcus to coronal_sulcus instead of doing a mass update. Should I change it?

garfieldfromgarfield said:
Maybe it would be better to have it disambiguated. If someone wants to tag a post containing brain furrows, they could probably use "brain sulcus" or "cerebral sulcus" or something similar.
Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe it would have been better for me to just alias sulcus to coronal_sulcus instead of doing a mass update. Should I change it?

A word of warning against disambiguating tags, rainbow dash isn't very fond of those. An alias could definitely work.

snpthecat said:
A word of warning against disambiguating tags, rainbow dash isn't very fond of those. An alias could definitely work.

Just updated the BUR. Now it’s an alias instead of an update.

I share the same sentiments @gattonero2001 had and what @Demesejha initially had on the original thread (topic #28675).
Isn't coronal_sulcus just going to be a duplicate for retracted_foreskin & foreskin_pull?

thegreatwolfgang said:
I share the same sentiments @gattonero2001 had and what @Demesejha initially had on the original thread (topic #28675).
Isn't coronal_sulcus just going to be a duplicate for retracted_foreskin & foreskin_pull?

Or circumcised.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I share the same sentiments @gattonero2001 had and what @Demesejha initially had on the original thread (topic #28675).
Isn't coronal_sulcus just going to be a duplicate for retracted_foreskin & foreskin_pull?

Not necessarily. I guess I should first give some examples of what I would consider sulcus.
Take these three posts for example. In the first two, there's a gap on the penis between where the glans ends and the foreskin begins. That's what I'm referring to as the coronal sulcus. In the third image, the gap, though smaller, is still there; the wrinkles of the foreskin are the main indicator of its presence.
Images tagged with retracted_foreskin may often feature a coronal sulcus, but not always. In these three posts, the wrinkles of the foreskin are shown, but there is no visible gap between it and the glans, meaning the sulcus is not visible and should not be tagged as such.
Images with foreskin_pull like this one may show the inside of the foreskin, but the sulcus is still not visible.

garfieldfromgarfield said:
Not necessarily. I guess I should first give some examples of what I would consider sulcus.
Take these three posts for example. In the first two, there's a gap on the penis between where the glans ends and the foreskin begins. That's what I'm referring to as the coronal sulcus. In the third image, the gap, though smaller, is still there; the wrinkles of the foreskin are the main indicator of its presence.
Images tagged with retracted_foreskin may often feature a coronal sulcus, but not always. In these three posts, the wrinkles of the foreskin are shown, but there is no visible gap between it and the glans, meaning the sulcus is not visible and should not be tagged as such.
Images with foreskin_pull like this one may show the inside of the foreskin, but the sulcus is still not visible.

I think post #1289448 really exemplifies coronal_sulcus.
If it should be a proper tag, it will need to have a clear and distinct definition (w/ examples). Otherwise, it would fit better as a public set.

Another gripe I have is aliasing sulcus to coronal_sulcus.
The term sulcus is synonymous with "groove" or "fissure", and is also used in various anatomical features as well, like in neuroanatomy.
Since there only exists a total of 76 posts in sulcus and are only tagged by a handful of people for the past 6 years, you should stick to using the proper term of coronal_sulcus only.
In other words, I believe a mass update would better while leaving sulcus as an empty/unused tag.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I think post #1289448 really exemplifies coronal_sulcus.
If it should be a proper tag, it will need to have a clear and distinct definition (w/ examples). Otherwise, it would fit better as a public set.

I agree with this. That post could be one of the examples, and I'd be willing to draft a detailed definition for the wiki page.

Another gripe I have is aliasing sulcus to coronal_sulcus.
The term sulcus is synonymous with "groove" or "fissure", and is also used in various anatomical features as well, like in neuroanatomy.
Since there only exists a total of 76 posts in sulcus and are only tagged by a handful of people for the past 6 years, you should stick to using the proper term of coronal_sulcus only.
In other words, I believe a mass update would better while leaving sulcus as an empty/unused tag.

This BUR started as a mass update, but I changed it to an alias because I thought that'd be an easier way to make taggers aware of the change.
If someone were to keep tagging "sulcus" even after the update to "coronal_sulcus", it might get a bit confusing. I thought an alias would fix this problem.
Would it really be better to keep it as a mass update after all?

garfieldfromgarfield said:
This BUR started as a mass update, but I changed it to an alias because I thought that'd be an easier way to make taggers aware of the change.
If someone were to keep tagging "sulcus" even after the update to "coronal_sulcus", it might get a bit confusing. I thought an alias would fix this problem.
Would it really be better to keep it as a mass update after all?

Yeah, that was because you were dissuaded from making sulcus into a disambiguation tag.
In my opinion, there is no need to disambiguate it since there is a very small possibility people are going to tag any other sort of sulci.

However, by principle, we should not alias a general term into a specific term.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Yeah, that was because you were dissuaded from making sulcus into a disambiguation tag.
In my opinion, there is no need to disambiguate it since there is a very small possibility people are going to tag any other sort of sulci.

However, by principle, we should not alias a general term into a specific term.

Got it. In that case, I’ll change it back into a mass update.