So I just created a wiki article for the wide_hips tag, describing approximate waist/hip and shoulder/hip ratios for both males and females.

Since females generally have wider hips than shoulders, and males have wider shoulders than hips, here's what I came up with (these are all minimum values):

Male waist/hip: 0.9; shoulder/hip: 1.1
Female waist/hip: 0.7; shoulder/hip: 0.8

Let me know what you guys think of these guidelines, and if we should change them.

I prefer dat_ass personally, but hey, I'm not calling the shots here.

... I am very much confused

I, for one, plan to ignore this advice and simply decide based on my own good common sense whether a given picture has obviously, abnormally large hips, and will decide whether to employ the tag based on that judgement. Then if someone wants to dispute it, they can remove the tag and I will probably not even notice, or care.

Edit: Unless they are obviously, obviously wrong, beyond all measure of reason.

In the hopes of being at least minimally constructive, instead of offering specific ratios that nobody will remember or bother to check, perhaps a better guideline would be "girls with hips three times as wide as a normal-sized head, or guys with hips wider than their shoulders". It gives a rough sense of the proportions, without being overly specific or requiring bizarre, nebulously-defined mathematics.

And keeping in mind that they're guidelines and not rules, it's really OK if it's given an approximation and still relies on folks' judgement.

ikdind said:
I, for one, plan to ignore this advice and simply decide based on my own good common sense whether a given picture has obviously, abnormally large hips, and will decide whether to employ the tag based on that judgement. Then if someone wants to dispute it, they can remove the tag and I will probably not even notice, or care.

Edit: Unless they are obviously, obviously wrong, beyond all measure of reason.

i second this

ikdind said:
I, for one, plan to ignore this advice and simply decide based on my own good common sense whether a given picture has obviously, abnormally large hips, and will decide whether to employ the tag based on that judgement.

This.

All those tags containing a notion of size are bound to fail, because one defines non-standard proportions based on their views on standard ones, and they will be different for everyone.
You might try and define proportions that will reach a consensus here, which us regulars will apply, but the e621 plebs have mostly no clue about the forum, the wiki, or don't care, or tag pictures based on what they have seen before.

That said, I'm the first one to rage about the fact the "cute" tag is not used in the way it's currently defined in the wiki (fucking perverts, leave my cute pictures alone >_<) but unless you can have a constant control on the stream of posts, attempts at normalizing tags treating of subjective matters will never work.

>Everything everyone has said
This is why I created this topic. I had a feeling there was too much math involved and/or the guidelines were too specific.

You, um. Changed the wiki to say the tag applies if the character's hips are wider than their shoulders or hips.

If their hips are wider than their hips, the implications are much greater than that.

Wide hips are wide hips, do we really need this much detail on them? If they look wide from a glance, shouldn't that be enough? Or do we need measuring tape?

I've never measured "wide_hips" in relation to the shoulders, but rather to the waist.

Well, I seem to remember from an art class somewhere that females' hips are about as wide as the shoulder while males' hips are thinner (closer to the width of their chests). Could totally be remembering that wrong right now, as my last formal art class was half a decade ago. Seems like a better guide than nothing, though. Maybe a real artist could chime in?