The bulk update request #10860 has been rejected.

change category manly (17083) -> invalid

Reason: This is a broad and subjective term. Similar tags have been invalidated, so this one should be as well.

EDIT: The bulk update request #10860 (forum #445006) has been rejected by @spe.

I'd rather alias barazoku to manly.

beholding said:
The bulk update request #10860 has been rejected.

change category manly (17083) -> invalid

Reason: This is a broad and subjective term. Similar tags have been invalidated, so this one should be as well.

The wiki page for manly is clear enough on what constitutes it's usage, and it's understood that it's the opposite counterpart to girly

watsit said:
I'd rather alias barazoku to manly.

I was just about to say the same thing!

Edit: topic #56143

fluffermutt said:
The wiki page for manly is clear enough on what constitutes it's usage, and it's understood that it's the opposite counterpart to girly

The issue is not that it's unclear, it's that it's broad and subjective. It can be based on physical or behavioral traits, and it lists several different, non-overlapping traits in each category. If people want muscular, hairy, dominant, or aggressive men, we already have tags for each of those individually.

beholding said:
The issue is not that it's unclear, it's that it's broad and subjective. It can be based on physical or behavioral traits, and it lists several different, non-overlapping traits in each category. If people want muscular, hairy, dominant, or aggressive men, we already have tags for each of those individually.

Posts with character's who are depicted as confident, competitive, dominant, and aggressive themselves do not inherently make a character manly, The wiki says "and/or" which makes it clear that a post does not need to contain all the qualities listed. Same with the physical traits, not every male-presenting character with body hair, facial hair, or large genitals in and of themselves would make them inherently manly.

Wiki page states:

"Manly defines a male, andromorph, or maleherm character who shows some physical and/or behavioral characteristics that denotes its masculinity and are traditionally associated with men."

I would tweak the wiki to instead say "Manly defines any male presenting character that showcase masculine characteristics and are traditionally associated with men." Because really, the girly and manly are just tags the specify betrween men who are masc and fem. It's clear, and easily understandable. And a very useful tag that people would search for. Broad or not, it serves a purpose and it does it well.

Regardless, I think most people would still agree a full out invalidation does not make sense.

fluffermutt said:
Posts with character's who are depicted as confident, competitive, dominant, and aggressive themselves do not inherently make a character manly, The wiki says "and/or" which makes it clear that a post does not need to contain all the qualities listed. Same with the physical traits, not every male-presenting character with body hair, facial hair, or large genitals in and of themselves would make them inherently manly.

All these arguments could also be made for cute, innocent, himbo, etc., but those are invalid due to their subjectivity. "Manly" is not an objective quality, and definitions of masculinity vary across cultures.

beholding said:
All these arguments could also be made for cute, innocent, himbo, etc., but those are invalid due to their subjectivity. "Manly" is not an objective quality, and definitions of masculinity vary across cultures.

I don't think it's comparable. Yes, cuteness is completely subjective and wouldn't work well for the sake of tagging purposes. Though, I would argue people know exactly what you mean when you say "Male-presenting character with Traditionally Masculine Traits"

That's not nearly as broad.

Considering girly has long been aliased to Femboy, purposely only using the tag girly for your points is disingenuous. A part of me wants to agree with invalidating manly but I can't do so in good conscience because it's a tag that people want and like to use to browse a certain style of art. "Male-presenting character with Traditionally Masculine Traits" is a very long way to say Muscular and/or Flexing

fluffermutt said:
Though, I would argue people know exactly what you mean when you say "Male-presenting character with Traditionally Masculine Traits"

I think the fact there is currently a heated argument going on in your own request thread rather disproves this. (For the record, I personally don't have a strong opinion on that particular debate beyond "This is subjective.")

Is the tag subjective - yes
If that tag works - yes. On the most pictures with such tag I definetly can say that feels manly, so the most peoples determinate it without problems.

yetanotheraiuser said:
Is the tag subjective - yes
If that tag works - yes. On the most pictures with such tag I definitely can say that feels manly, so the most peoples determinate it without problems.

Thank you for putting it in common sense.
There's nothing wrong with subjective tags as long as it serves the purpose that people want it for.

The bulk update request #10860 (forum #445006) has been rejected by @spe.

nin10dope said:
There's nothing wrong with subjective tags as long as it serves the purpose that people want it for.

By definition a subjective tag can't. Subjective means its meaning/use depends on the individual person, so it will only work for some people and not others. There needs to be some level of objectiveness to have a consistent basis for use.

nin10dope said:
Thank you for putting it in common sense.
There's nothing wrong with subjective tags as long as it serves the purpose that people want it for.

I did say "a very useful tag that people would search for. Broad or not, it serves a purpose and it does it well."