Reason: They're all pretty much the same thing.

this

I don't like any of these tags. Perhaps aliasing them to invalid_tag would be more fitting.

ippiki_ookami said:
I don't like any of these tags. Perhaps aliasing them to invalid_tag would be more fitting.

Yeah, those are all extremely subjective and typically used only when a tagger doesn't like an artist for some dumb reason.

null0010 said:
Yeah, those are all extremely subjective and typically used only when a tagger doesn't like an artist for some dumb reason.

scruffysecond

ippiki_ookami said:
I don't like any of these tags. Perhaps aliasing them to invalid_tag would be more fitting.

Kindof agree on that.

ippiki_ookami said:
I don't like any of these tags. Perhaps aliasing them to invalid_tag would be more fitting.

Agreed. Sometimes it's even more an issue with perspective than anatomy. And sometimes the tagger doesn't know how anatomy works, either, and "knows" that assholes are always precisely 2.89 in. from vaginas, and any deviation is a CLEAR ANATAMY FALE. Plus with custom characters, you can never be sure the creator didn't want the tail halfway up the back.

Putting aside the merit of questionable_anatomy for the moment, those tags are indeed all the same thing, and thus should be aliased to one thing.

31h253 said:
Putting aside the merit of questionable_anatomy for the moment, those tags are indeed all the same thing, and thus should be aliased to one thing.

yep

null0010 said:
Yeah, those are all extremely subjective and typically used only when a tagger doesn't like an artist for some dumb reason.

I was one of the ones who ragged a recent picture with "incorrect_anatomy".

I did this, because there is a law on proportion:

1. A human's (anthroes are human-like, so these apply) entire figure is equal to seven shapes of it's own head size stacked upon one another (from top to bottom).

2. A human's hip-line is equal to three head sizes (from top to bottom).

3. A human's knee-line is equal to five.

If the heads don't add up, correctly, the anatomy is wrong -- a.k.a. "fail" and "incorrect".

Perhaps the artist in question was drawn in a stylized way. The image you tagged doesn't look that bad, to me. Your use of that tag is extremely...

shallow and pedantic.

null0010 said:
Perhaps the artist in question was drawn in a stylized way. The image you tagged doesn't look that bad, to me. Your use of that tag is extremely...

shallow and pedantic.

Would you rather have me use "horrible_artwork"? Look, I gave you guidelines that I was going by. I don't get the whole "shallow and pedantic" shit, but, if you're upset because I used facts and logic (in regards to artwork critiquing) in my reasoning for tagging an image that way, so be it.

Think what you will; I will not change my thinking nor my tagging style over a petty dispute involving the art style of an artist that I don't even know nor care to pay attention to.

He or she may continue to draw however they please, but, I tag what I see -- I'm only following the guidelines that you people had established from the beginning:

I saw (blatantly) bad anatomy, therefore, the picture was tagged as such.

I rest my voice. Good day/evening/night to you.

UltravioletMoonRay said:
Would you rather have me use "horrible_artwork"?

No.

UltravioletMoonRay said:
I don't get the whole "shallow and pedantic" shit

Shallow and pedantic

UltravioletMoonRay said:
The rest

Lighten up.

ippiki_ookami said:
No.
Shallow and pedantic
Lighten up.

At the risk of pushing this -- already -- fucked-up imbalance of pride and egotism that you mods seem to possess to a level far beyond that of "crazy", I'm ending my argument, here. I don't understand how idgits get so much power, nowadays.

UltravioletMoonRay said:
At the risk of pushing this -- already -- fucked-up imbalance of pride and egotism that you mods seem to possess to a level far beyond that of "crazy", I'm ending my argument, here. I don't understand how idgits get so much power, nowadays.

They get power because their judgement, idiotic or otherwise, is trusted.

Now shut up because even I'm starting to get sick of this now.

Test-Subject_217601 said:
They get power because their judgement, idiotic or otherwise, is trusted.

Now shut up because even I'm starting to get sick of this now.

Blame your idol, dear. Not me.

UltravioletMoonRay said:
At the risk of pushing this -- already -- fucked-up imbalance of pride and egotism that you mods seem to possess to a level far beyond that of "crazy", I'm ending my argument, here. I don't understand how idgits get so much power, nowadays.

Lol. "Power." 'cause having a deciding say in how images are cataloged on a niche website is "power."

I understand your method for seeing if a character is proportionally correct (based on averaged human biometrics). Fun thing is, though, not all humans actually fit that. It's an average. Michael Phelps is, by that standard, anatomically incorrect. His arms are too long, his legs are too short, and his feet are huge.

Furries are, as you said, anthropomorphised animals. That is, they are given human characteristics. That is totally different than "fit to a t human proportionality, but it's ok to ignore other non-human traits like tails and fur." Even if the Cheshire Cat in the old Alice cartoon movie never spoke, it would be anthropomorphised, because its teeth are decidedly human. But you wouldn't call it anatomically incorrect for not fitting that porportionality guideline, nor would you necessarily call it feral, 'cause man. Dem teefs.

It's not really a useful tag, in any of its variations.

RedOctober said:
Lol. "Power." 'cause having a deciding say in how images are cataloged on a niche website is "power."

I understand your method for seeing if a character is proportionally correct (based on averaged human biometrics). Fun thing is, though, not all humans actually fit that. It's an average. Michael Phelps is, by that standard, anatomically incorrect. His arms are too long, his legs are too short, and his feet are huge.

Furries are, as you said, anthropomorphised animals. That is, they are given human characteristics. That is totally different than "fit to a t human proportionality, but it's ok to ignore other non-human traits like tails and fur." Even if the Cheshire Cat in the old Alice cartoon movie never spoke, it would be anthropomorphised, because its teeth are decidedly human. But you wouldn't call it anatomically incorrect for not fitting that porportionality guideline, nor would you necessarily call it feral, 'cause man. Dem teefs.

It's not really a useful tag, in any of its variations.

I disagree with about 80% of what you said, but, less of a shit could not be given, ultimately.

Sorry, but, it's whatever...

// meh

UltravioletMoonRay said:
I disagree with about 80% of what you said, but, less of a shit could not be given, ultimately.

Sorry, but, it's whatever...

// meh

Wait, you disagree? On what? That Micheal Phelps actually is anatomically incorrect? Or that the law of proportions you're using does in fact apply completely and accurately to every human? Or that anthropomorphising has a meaning that it doesn't actually have? Or that the Cheshire Cat (a made-up character allowed to be however its creator wants it to be) is anatomically incorrect?

UltravioletMoonRay said:
At the risk of pushing this -- already -- fucked-up imbalance of pride and egotism that you mods seem to possess to a level far beyond that of "crazy", I'm ending my argument, here. I don't understand how idgits get so much power, nowadays.

What, so I'm an idiot for telling you to lighten up? How does that make sense? What I'm saying to you is to chill out and stop getting bent out of shape over nothing. If you feel so strongly about these tags, then tell me this: How do they improve the site? What do they add? Are people going to use them in searches? The reason I haven't put these aliases into effect yet is because I'm still waiting for a compelling argument against them. Do you have one?

ippiki_ookami said:
What, so I'm an idiot for telling you to lighten up? How does that make sense? What I'm saying to you is to chill out and stop getting bent out of shape over nothing. If you feel so strongly about these tags, then tell me this: How do they improve the site? What do they add? Are people going to use them in searches? The reason I haven't put these aliases into effect yet is because I'm still waiting for a compelling argument against them. Do you have one?

Some blooming artists, like me, may want to be able to search artwork that features "incorrect anatomy", for the sake and hope of learning from those drawing on what to do or what NOT to do if you plan to become a true artist.

One can't just draw anything, any kind of way, and call it "their style of art". Forgive me for being blunt, moderator, but, if you suck, you just suck -- but, you can improve.

Another point: Let's say that I uploaded a pic of my own, and someone tagged it that way. First of all, if I were looking for critiques and reviews on it, I'd drop links on public forums, and such, right? But, also, with that tag, there, others would, also, be able to collectively compare my work to the works of others'.

Btw, I never said why you were idgit-like -- just that you were.

Sir, maybe you don't understand "passion", ever thought of that?

There are your reasons and explanations. Be satisfied.

// have some V-day chocolate

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Tag alias: anatomy_fail, incorrect_anatomy, bad_anatomy, weird_anatomy, horrible_anatomy --> questionable_anatomy

Reason: They're all pretty much the same thing.

This is done for now. The jury is still out on questionable_anatomy -> invalid_tag.

Think y'all forgot the biggest one: avoidable anatomy mistake.
(Linked to previous version cause it's the most descriptive.)

it has been decided: ALL of these tags are now aliased to invalid_tag

null0010 said:
it has been decided: ALL of these tags are now aliased to invalid_tag

Thank God!

And if I subbmitted a compllaint report.. itts because i plasstered...

null0010 said:
it has been decided: ALL of these tags are now aliased to invalid_tag

welp. I tried.

UltravioletMoonRay said:
One can't just draw anything, any kind of way, and call it "their style of art".

But in a lot of cases, you can. Ever played the Fable games? Those characters all have hands and feet that are way too big, and the arms and legs are too long and spindly. But I wouldn't call it anatomically incorrect, just an odd style. Dexter's Lab, Phineas and Ferb, Hey Arnold. These are all cartoons whose characters are "anatomically incorrect" in different ways. But I don't think anyone would label them as such. It's a cartoon, they're stylized.

UltravioletMoonRay said:
One can't just draw anything, any kind of way, and call it "their style of art".

Except one can just draw anything, any kind of way, and call it "their style of art."

Whether or not that statement is true depends on exactly what they draw, the way they draw it, and the skill of the artist.

As RedOctober said, all of those creators can call it their style because they are evidently skilled enough to effectively utilize design elements that break from traditional anatomy in a way that is conducive to the purpose of the character.

That's completely different from an undeveloped artist whose anatomical inaccuracies in figure drawing are a result of ignorance, rather than a conscious decision. They can't claim that those are stylistic choices (but if they're an asshole they will anyways).

Both are "anatomically incorrect" renderings of figures. The difference is that only the former is a legitimate, developed form of art.

P.S. If you want to find realistic art, then why not use the realism and surrealism tags?

I think.. at the core of this .. is if that we want to continue to be artist friendly here, I think we should be above insulting their work with a tag that basically states, condones and perhaps even encourage the action that "yea.. if somebody has an opinion that your art work is fucked up, were going to label it as so".

Not everybody is a perfect drawer and sometimes they mess things up. It could be they trying a new style, a new pose, a new perspective, or they are just absolutely bad.. but oh well, they fucked it up; get over it.

I think once when I was feeling spiteful and in a bad mood, I used it once. I remember feeling bad about doing so later on in the day ... I can't remember if I ever went back to fix it. :(

How about a "critiques_requested" tag that artists can add to their artwork? That way they can get some feedback, but only when they themselves request it.

Shatari said:
How about a "critiques_requested" tag that artists can add to their artwork? That way they can get some feedback, but only when they themselves request it.

Don't a lot of people critique the art in the comments whether the artist requests it or not?

A specific tag would allow the artist to attract people who are into that sort of thing to a location where they might actually be noticed. It would serve the same positive function as the deleted tags, but without being insulting.

I'd rather not have to police an "artists only" tag, I don't think that's a very good idea.

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Don't a lot of people critique the art in the comments whether the artist requests it or not?

Yes. And I'm honestly not ok with this idea, because the implication of what Shatari said is that we don't critique an image if the tag isn't there, and that's part of the whole purpose of the comments: posting opinions on the image. Also, a lot of artwork may be here with the artist's permission, but the artist him/herself doesn't come here and look at his/her images, so not many would have this tag.

RedOctober said:
the implication of what Shatari said is that we don't critique an image if the tag isn't there

No, that doesn't really follow suit. There's no reason not to discuss the artwork, this tag would just focus the people who like to do that to someplace where they'll actually be noticed by the artist.

RedOctober said:
Also, a lot of artwork may be here with the artist's permission, but the artist him/herself doesn't come here and look at his/her images, so not many would have this tag.

But the ones that do post their artwork here might like to use this as more than a passive hosting site. Not everyone uses Furaffinity and DeviantArt.

Shatari said:
How about a "critiques_requested" tag that artists can add to their artwork? That way they can get some feedback, but only when they themselves request it.

The artist can just make an account and leave a comment on the post saying "Hey guys, comments and constructive criticism would be welcome."

Also, a tag like like that violates the "tag what you see" policy.

Another tag for submission to invalid: unusual_anus_placement

UltravioletMoonRay said:
I rest my voice.

That's good.
You should do that a lot more often.

Actini said:
That's good.
You should do that a lot more often.

Let's keep it civil, people.

Murmillos said:
Another tag for submission to invalid: unusual_anus_placement

Done.

null0010 said:
Let's keep it civil, people.

You say this after he whines and makes up a conspiracy about the moderation, pestering everyone all the while.
:/

Objection, sometimes anatomy is unquestionably awful, these tags shouldn't be invalid, though they should probably be amalgamated into one, I would suggest 'questionable_ anatomy'.

Furmillionaire said:
Objection, sometimes anatomy is unquestionably awful, these tags shouldn't be invalid, though they should probably be amalgamated into one, I would suggest 'questionable_ anatomy'.

That's the way it was and it was grossly misused and abused. Also it isn't very conductive to making artists want to have their art posted here if it just gets blasted with trolly tags the instant it's uploaded.