Aliasing hunk → invalid_tag
Link to alias

Reason:

Unless speaking of an Umbrella Corporation Special Security Agent, hunk is a highly subjective tag.

Not unlike babe, which is fine here, so long as we are speaking of a certain pig ...

Looks like the majority of images tagged with this could easily be serviced by tags like big_muscles or manly, in conjunction with male.

+1

Yep, plus one. Might be possible to alias it somewhere else, maybe to muscles.
And speaking of related tags... manful. That's even closer to manly, which in itself is somewhat subjective.

Oh, and there's dilf aka mature_male, but maybe not directly applicable.

Sharp_Coyote said:
Not unlike babe, which is fine here, so long as we are speaking of a certain pig ...

One particular user seems fond of using babe for females from Disney's Gargoyles. Only one character among those post, and it's not the pig...

Sharp_Coyote said:
Not unlike babe, which is fine here, so long as we are speaking of a certain pig ...

Chessax said:
One particular user seems fond of using babe for females from Disney's Gargoyles. Only one character among those post, and it's not the pig...

Yep. babe has been made a character tag, and is now solely in use by fab3716 for tagging gargoyles females.

+1 to invalidate the babe tag as well.

Genjar said:
And speaking of related tags... manful. That's even closer to manly, which in itself is somewhat subjective.

It sounds like those two should be aliased together as well.

I agree about that tag being somewhat subjective, yet I appreciate its use when describing very masculine appearing females (just as girly is popular when tagging feminine looking males).

Suggested changes:

babe, hunk -a-> invalid tag
babe_(character) -i-> pig
hunk_(character) -i-> resident_evil or whatever the tag is
user:fab3716 -a-> user:Dumbass_McGee

Sharp_Coyote said:
I agree about that tag being somewhat subjective, yet I appreciate its use when describing very masculine appearing females (just as girly is popular when tagging feminine looking males).

This is why I proposed masculine/feminine_male/female tags once, but it never really got much feedback.

Kida said:
This is why I proposed masculine/feminine_male/female tags once, but it never really got much feedback.

Those sound useful and easy to understand. Maybe we could replace tags such as manly and tomboy with those.

Manly tends to be tagged mostly for males, instead of masculine females (which would be more useful). Tagging it for males seems redundant, because they're manly by default.

Genjar said:
Those sound useful and easy to understand. Maybe we could replace tags such as manly and tomboy with those.

Manly tends to be tagged mostly for males, instead of masculine females (which would be more useful). Tagging it for males seems redundant, because they're manly by default.

Manly is meant to imply that the man shown has a testosterone level far above that of a normal man.

These tags should be used:

Manly: For highly masculine males
Girly/Femme: For highly feminine males
Butch: For highly masculine females
Highly feminine females don't need a tag, as, in my experience, there is a cap for how feminine a person can get without just becoming a needy lusting bitch with no personality.
DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS...literally.

ShylokVakarian said:
there is a cap for how feminine a person can get without just becoming a needy lusting bitch with no personality.

ಠ_ಠ

parasprite said:
ಠ_ಠ

I said IN MY EXPERIENCE. Not saying it's true, just saying that's what I see.

I don't know, I'm not an expert on women. All I know is there's butch and normal women.

*sigh* Just disregard that sentence about highly feminine women.

Social Skill XP Loss: 1500 XP

Bumping this to suggest again invalidating hunk and hunky both, as well as babe, as subjective and fairly useless tags.

Sharp_Coyote said:
Bumping this to suggest again invalidating hunk and hunky both, as well as babe, as subjective and fairly useless tags.

Again, suggested changes:

babe, hunk -a-> invalid tag
babe_(character) -i-> pig
hunk_(character) -i-> resident_evil or whatever the tag is
user:fab3716 -a-> user:Dumbass_McGee

Again, kidding on the last one.

ShylokVakarian said:
babe_(character) -i-> pig

Character -> species implications don't work well. Easiest counterpoint I think is drawing Babe as a non-pig porcine.

animperfectpatsy said:
Character -> species implications don't work well. Easiest counterpoint I think is drawing Babe as a non-pig porcine.

Then babe_(character) -i-> porcine. It's not like anyone's going to draw TF art of Babe.

ShylokVakarian said:
Then babe_(character) -i-> porcine. It's not like anyone's going to draw TF art of Babe.

This site doesn't do character to species implications.

There's no reason why someone couldn't do that. Or, perhaps, draw a ponified Babe (with a spider cutie mark, perhaps?).

So yeah. Those don't work.

Clawdragons said:
This site doesn't do character to species implications.

There's no reason why someone couldn't do that. Or, perhaps, draw a ponified Babe (with a spider cutie mark, perhaps?).

So yeah. Those don't work.

Again, is it too much to ask for multi-part arguments when it comes to implications? We could solve this "We can't implicate character to species because transformation is a thing" problem once and for all.

Bumping this to suggest again invalidating hunk and hunky both, as well as babe, as subjective and fairly useless tags

(as they have neither been approved nor denied, and still in danger of a Shylok-hijacking 8) )

Approved hunk, hunky -> invalid_tag and babe -> female (to match with babes)