In regards to forum #186323 forum #228657

No discussion and reasoning was pretty unsatisfactory for this to have been approved as is.

Calves is a bodypart but is also a term for a grouping of muscles of the lower leg.

Also i cannot verify its usage thru considering other tags of similar context like bull or cub are all singular i have my doubts about the validity of the assertion that it could would be mistagged for cattle young.

Ruku said:
In regards to forum #186323 forum #228657

No discussion and reasoning was pretty unsatisfactory for this to have been approved as is.

Calves is a bodypart but is also a term for a grouping of muscles of the lower leg.

Also i cannot verify its usage thru considering other tags of similar context like bull or cub are all singular i have my doubts about the validity of the assertion that it could would be mistagged for cattle young.

What about calf_(disambiguation)?

I seriously doubt very many people would tag the animal with this

kamimatsu said:
What about calf_(disambiguation)?

not much a point in disambiguation when it has mostly been used for only one thing. A skimming thru the tag history does seem to indicate that it was used mostly for just that distinct musculature of the lower legs, couldnt find a single calf(young of cattle) in the history so far.

bumping this.

Do we have any other alternative collective terms for distinct lower leg muscles?

As noted before invalidation was not legitimate, as reasoning for the move was not true especially with no discussion about this.

Darou said:
Do we have any other alternative collective terms for distinct lower leg muscles?

I found the terms shank and sura.

From the sound of it, it was probably invalidated for the same reason leg and armpit are invalidated- calves are just going to be visible if you can see the back of the legs. Combining muscle tone tags with rear_view and feet/paws gets some success. It is odd that calves was invalidated while quads and back_muscles are both still around. I'd kinda think that's more because they've never been suggested for invalidation rather than because they're particularly useful.

regsmutt said:
From the sound of it, it was probably invalidated for the same reason leg and armpit are invalidated- calves are just going to be visible if you can see the back of the legs. Combining muscle tone tags with rear_view and feet/paws gets some success. It is odd that calves was invalidated while quads and back_muscles are both still around. I'd kinda think that's more because they've never been suggested for invalidation rather than because they're particularly useful.

I figure some peopel are 'into' those sorts of things, but... I dunno.

regsmutt said:
From the sound of it, it was probably invalidated for the same reason leg and armpit are invalidated- calves are just going to be visible if you can see the back of the legs. Combining muscle tone tags with rear_view and feet/paws gets some success. It is odd that calves was invalidated while quads and back_muscles are both still around. I'd kinda think that's more because they've never been suggested for invalidation rather than because they're particularly useful.

back_muscles ->

• ~1575 posts
• back_muscles -rear_view -> ~800 posts, of which about 1/3 are rear_view. Most of the remainder are 3/4 view (do we have a tag for that? example of 3/4 view: post #1409852), with a minority of posts showing back muscles in side_view
• back_muscles -rear_view -side_view -front_view -first_person_view (these are the 4 most-tagged *view tags ) -> about the same (~800), meaning probably most of these posts have no *view tag.

So some cleanup is needed. Contingent on that, +1 to invalidating back_muscles.

quads seems to be a similar situation (if tagged muscles + muscle in question is visible, the muscle is clearly defined in most posts). Similar number of total posts (1377).

savageorange said:

• back_muscles -rear_view -> ~800 posts, of which about 1/3 are rear_view. Most of the remainder are 3/4 view (do we have a tag for that? example of 3/4 view: post #1409852), with a minority of posts showing back muscles in side_view
• back_muscles -rear_view -side_view -front_view -first_person_view (these are the 4 most-tagged *view tags ) -> about the same (~800), meaning probably most of these posts have no *view tag

• Images with multiple characters usually don't get a view tag unless it's either solo_focus (eg. post #372920) or all characters are oriented the same way (eg. post #1202151). Some mistags exist, though.
• As far as I know, there's no ruling on where exactly the line between side view and rear_view is.
• post #1409852 would be rear_view if the other guy wasn't there.

regsmutt said:
From the sound of it, it was probably invalidated for the same reason leg and armpit are invalidated- calves are just going to be visible if you can see the back of the legs. Combining muscle tone tags with rear_view and feet/paws gets some success. It is odd that calves was invalidated while quads and back_muscles are both still around. I'd kinda think that's more because they've never been suggested for invalidation rather than because they're particularly useful.

Im aware of that but remember also that it is a term also for a grouping of muscles and the tag is for tagging distinctive muscular tone(like other muscle tags such as abs, pecs or back_muscles) as seen on the example i posted in the 2nd link on the OP, your suggestion also is no solution to finding such images as feet is rarely tagged and its debatable if itl be invalidated or not as its oposite "hands" is invalidated and even with it there is a high rate of miss because not in every muscular image has the artist thought about toning the calf muscles when they plausibly should be. As far as both quads and back_muscles again the definition has to actually be there.
Should i bother pointing out that butt is still in existence and is still being defended by staff, something that is after head,torso, Hands,arms and feet is pretty much the most common thing youl find in any image featuring a character or person on the internet

for reference both quads and back_muscles both require muscle definition, the latter you will notice for the most part does not contain any posts featuring simple flat backs but only posts with some form of definition of the muscles, traps as well as the transitions between the lats and erector spinae being the most common. images with pecs could simply be found with front_view non the less we still have pecs because your generalized search suggestion includes a lot of what someone -who would be better helped with the specific term- is not interested in looking at. We are supposed to make it easier for users to find what they are looking for, not harder.

BlueDingo said:
I found the terms shank and sura.

no idea what sura is, never herd of it before. As for shank goes im aware of the term but i do think it is quite rare in american usage, i certainly havnt seen it used any were else but in relation to stereotypical pirates by americans.

BlueDingo said:

• Images with multiple characters usually don't get a view tag unless it's either solo_focus (eg. post #372920) or all characters are oriented the same way (eg. post #1202151).

Since when? I suppose it'd makes sense to tag them that way (to avoid clutter in multi-character posts), but that'd break some of the aliases. For example, back_turned and back_to_camera are character-specific.

As far as I know, if there's one character facing the camera and another with his back to it, it gets both rear_view and front_view tags.

savageorange said:
back_muscles ->

• ~1575 posts
• back_muscles -rear_view -> ~800 posts, of which about 1/3 are rear_view. Most of the remainder are 3/4 view (do we have a tag for that? example of 3/4 view: post #1409852), with a minority of posts showing back muscles in side_view
• back_muscles -rear_view -side_view -front_view -first_person_view (these are the 4 most-tagged *view tags ) -> about the same (~800), meaning probably most of these posts have no *view tag.

So some cleanup is needed. Contingent on that, +1 to invalidating back_muscles.

quads seems to be a similar situation (if tagged muscles + muscle in question is visible, the muscle is clearly defined in most posts). Similar number of total posts (1377).

Could you please explain why your for Invalidating because if anything the information in your post if anything give credence to the need for the back_muscle tag to exist.

I'm not sure I agree with past me ;) but this is roughly the reasoning:

1:

• 1/3 of 800 = 264 (approximate number of back_muscles posts that should be tagged rear_view but aren't)
• (1575-800) + 264 = 1039 (ie. of all posts tagged back_muscles, ~65% would be rear_view if all relevant posts were properly tagged)

2:

I don't really see why anyone would actually be interested in back_muscles side_view, although that may just be my artistic sense saying they are rather minor elements in a side_view pic.

savageorange said:
I don't really see why anyone would actually be interested in back_muscles side_view, although that may just be my artistic sense saying they are rather minor elements in a side_view pic.

There is appeal in seeing things from a different angle.

If it's there, tag it. Every "should this be tagged" comment sparks another slippery slope argument (e.g., are elves relevant to E621?). E621 is in a post-"useful tags only" era and has been for years; now, we are in a "what is that called so I can tag it" era.

I didn't just tag spool, matchbox, stamp, penny_(coin), silly_straw, foam, quilt, and so on because I thought they were useful. I feel that maybe only 5% of the tags I can add are "useful", if that, so either I don't bother tagging anything as I hadn't for years or I do what can while ignoring my own opinions. And no, not every depiction of a taggable thing is a good example of that thing--tagging those anyway is up to the tagger's discretion--but others should not remove valid tags lightly just because they would not have tagged something.

Having said that, I don't think calves is a useful tag, just like everything else. More importantly, I don't think calves are a salient point of attention 99% of the time when they are depicted, even when muscular, just like how armpits aren't.

We mostly get into those weird simultaneously-over-and-under-analytical circles every time we stop focusing on what tags are for - which is for people to find something that's meaningful to them. Whatever exactly a tag says means somewhat less than the fact that someone who wants to find it has a way to, and that it's intuitive enough to figure out without having to dig too hard. The tag and wiki for back_muscles is weird to me, because it leaves out rhomboids, teres, and deltoids, but adds glutes for some reason. But i don't care, because what matters is that it's a nice easy general term for people who just want to find strong-looking backs. We could really easily folow suit here by just making the tag calf_muscles and explaining in the wiki that it primarily refers to visibly well-developed soleus and gastrocnemius muscles, and if people want to nerd out enough, add that the shin-side view includes the tibialis and fibularis heads. Specific stuff goes in the wiki; Findable format goes in consistent formation of the tag text.

Darou said:
no idea what sura is, never herd of it before. As for shank goes im aware of the term but i do think it is quite rare in american usage, i certainly havnt seen it used any were else but in relation to stereotypical pirates by americans.

We use it to mean "stab with a shiv".