Implicating biceps → muscular
Link to implication

Reason:

Part of being muscular :p

endroid said:
Implicating biceps → muscles
Link to implication

Reason:

Part of muscles

Makes sense to me. Nope. I stand corrected. Muscles is a body type, not just an umbrella tag for muscles so this wouldn't actually work.

God no, you can have biceps without being muscular.
Jut search "Biceps -muscles" and you'll see a ton of images tagged with biceps that shouldn't have the muscles tag.

Halite said:
God no, you can have biceps without being muscular.
Jut search "Biceps -muscles" and you'll see a ton of images tagged with biceps that shouldn't have the muscles tag.

Ah, I see. I didn't realise muscles was for a specific body type, not just an umbrella tag for all visible muscles. Makes more sense now. My bad.

When you put it like that, I think muscles is a bit confusing if it's only official purpose is to signify a buff body type. Wouldn't something like muscular be a lot clearer and less ambiguous?

At least big_muscles doesn't sound like an umbrella tag, but to keep it all in line with each other, that one would still need to become something along the lines of very_muscular.

Oh shit, I've have been using muscles wrong then, I tag it when I think they are noticeable part of the image, not as THE muscular body build, I mean like tagging characters with noticeable muscles to big_muscles bodies. Well i'll help the tagging if a muscular tag is created :s

There was some talk a few months back about turning muscles into an umbrella tag. RD in particular was pushing for that. Then the debate got stuck in limbo, like so many other tag discussions..

I'm still against it. Muscles would be pretty useless as an umbrella tag (basically every character has some muscles), not to mention how much work it'd be to rebuild the whole implication and alias tree and sort through and re-tag 40000 posts.

So I concur with what Halite said earlier.

And maybe we should alias muscles to muscular (it's currently aliased the other way around). That'd clarify the usage.

Genjar said:
(...) maybe we should alias muscles to muscular (it's currently aliased the other way around). That'd clarify the usage.

Have my +1 to that.

I agree on changing muscles to muscular as that would make much more sence, basically everbody have muscles but some wouldn't be very obvious.

The "muscular" tag on the other hand makes this more easier, this should be tagged on all posts that have obviously looking muscles.

(+1)

furrypickle said:
Makes sense to me. Nope. I stand corrected. Muscles is a body type, not just an umbrella tag for muscles so this wouldn't actually work.

Sorry, forgot that muscular was still in the picture.

Halite said:
God no, you can have biceps without being muscular.
Jut search "Biceps -muscles" and you'll see a ton of images tagged with biceps that shouldn't have the muscles tag.

Well that brings me to a standstill.

Having biceps but no very muscular is one thing that is making me confused.