It's been three days without a response to my question in the "Do we have a tag for that" thread (forum #450281), so I'll pose the question here.

post #5546396 post #5544321 post #5552875 post #5553540

Would it be a good idea to create a tag for this kind of "chiseled" or "shrinkwrapped" musculature with little to no apparent body fat, the kind of definition you can only get in real life through dehydration? Personally, I don't like it very much and would appreciate the ability to blacklist it. However, it may have too much overlap with huge_muscles, or be too ubiquitous.

I don't think a chiseled_muscles tag would be particularly helpful, since the name implies that it could literally mean any muscular character with well-defined muscles.
We also do not have a very complex subcategory when it comes to types of muscular characters (see tag group:figures), so having another addition to that would further complicate things with overlaps.

In short, it is either athletic, muscular (includes big_muscles, huge_muscles, and hyper_muscles), or musclegut.
The big_muscles tag are for characters with substantial muscle mass that can be "realistically attainable", huge_muscles are for "professional bodybuilders and weightlifters", and hyper_muscles are for those "beyond physical possibility".

You should blacklist huge_muscles in that case, or if you'd prefer a more curated search, make a private set of all the posts you don't like that you can blacklist in bulk yourself.

thegreatwolfgang said:
You should blacklist huge_muscles in that case

The problem is, it's not synonymous with huge_muscles, and huge_muscles is very undertagged regardless. Only the second of the three examples I showed were tagged with huge_muscles. (The third example probably should be tagged as such, but the fact remains it's very undertagged.) There's also the fact that real-life professional bodybuilders don't actually look like this (since it's physically impossible under normal circumstances), even if it's how they're popularly depicted in photoshoots and such.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I don't think a chiseled_muscles tag would be particularly helpful, since the name implies that it could literally mean any muscular character with well-defined muscles.

Not really. muscular -musclegut returns plenty of examples I wouldn't consider "chiseled" (though some of them should definitely be tagged with musclegut). I'd say post #5552462 is right around the edge of what I would consider non-chiseled, and that still has clear muscle definition. I'd wager it's a concept most people have at least heard of before, so it shouldn't be too unclear; the name itself refers to Roman statues, so there's even a go-to real-life example of what it looks like.

More examples:

post #5552822 post #5552450

Neither of these are tagged with any muscle size, and I'd say they're both at roughly the border between big_muscles and huge_muscles.

beholding said:
It's been three days without a response to my question in the "Do we have a tag for that" thread (forum #450281), so I'll pose the question here.

post #5546396 post #5544321 post #5552875

Would it be a good idea to create a tag for this kind of "chiseled" or "shrinkwrapped" musculature with little to no apparent body fat, the kind of definition you can only get in real life through dehydration? Personally, I don't like it very much and would appreciate the ability to blacklist it. However, it may have too much overlap with huge_muscles, or be too ubiquitous.

given the existence of athletic that is supposed to cover slightly toned/fit characters, muscular already stands for chiseled/blocked-out musculature. Creating another chiseled muscles tag would be uselessly redundant.

As for literally shrinkwrapped muscles(visible fibers) we do have striated_muscles, through greatly undertagged.

Not really. muscular -musclegut returns plenty of examples I wouldn't consider "chiseled" (though some of them should definitely be tagged with musclegut).

As you say a number of those are likely just musclegut, that term is simply still unknown to alot of people. Others more than likely actually should be athletic but would not be surprised if people still struggle to actually tell how athletic is actually different from muscular and simply tag the more common tag...

ryu_deacon said:
given the existence of athletic that is supposed to cover slightly toned/fit characters, muscular already stands for chiseled/blocked-out musculature.

That's not how it's used nor how it's described in the wiki. If that is how it's supposed to be used, the wiki needs to be revised appropriately.

beholding said:
That's not how it's used nor how it's described in the wiki. If that is how it's supposed to be used, the wiki needs to be revised appropriately.

Please don't use the wiki for announcing your personal tagging projects, it should be posted on topic #23571 instead.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Please don't use the wiki for announcing your personal tagging projects, it should be posted on topic #23571 instead.

I wasn't aware of that rule. I added it because I saw similar sections on other pages. I don't see the harm in it, though. A lot of users genuinely don't seem to be aware of subtags, so making that information more accessible seems like a good idea.

Unrelatedly, here's an example of an image I would consider to be muscular but not musclegut which does not have chiseled muscles:

post #5549480

beholding said:
I wasn't aware of that rule. I added it because I saw similar sections on other pages. I don't see the harm in it, though. A lot of users genuinely don't seem to be aware of subtags, so making that information more accessible seems like a good idea.

It's not a specific rule, but we just don't want to set an example since we already have a dedicated thread for it. If everybody on that thread did what you did, then the wiki will be clogged by tagging projects.

If you want to promote the awareness for certain subtags, you can use the howto:wiki editing guide as it mentions specific tag lists you can use at the end of the article, such as "Not to be confused with", "Related tags", and "See also".

As suggested, I have created a set. I will populate it as I encounter more examples. Send me a request if you'd like to become a maintainer.