I've started to see a huge list of muscle name tags popping up on some posts, and was wondering if this is something we're actually interested in having around the site.

I've currently seen these, most of these which are words I've never even heard:

• brachioradialis
• scalenes
• serratus
• sternocleidomastoid
• trapezius
• extensor_carpi
• flexor_carpi
• hamstrings
• scalenes
• sternocleidomastoid
• sartorius
• obliques
• infraspinatus
• latissimus_dorsi
• teres_major
• deltoids

Various have been used with big_*/huge_*/etc variants, so this is currently 60+ tags with very few posts, that as far as I'm aware are mostly meaningless for an image board.

• brachioradialis
• forearm muscles that help the biceps brachii flex the elbow
• scalenes
• neck muscles
• serratus
• back and side muscles along ribcage
• sternocleidomastoid
• neck muscles that show prominently when one turns the head
• trapezius
• big muscles on upper back and back of shoulders
• extensor_carpi
• forearm muscles that manipulate the wrists and hands
• flexor_carpi
• forearm muscles that also manipulate the wrists and hands
• hamstrings
• thigh muscles in rear between hips and knees
• sartorius
• body's longest muscles on the inside of the thighs
• obliques
• a number of muscles around the eyes, in the outer ears, or in the abdomen
• infraspinatus
• back muscles that help move the shoulder joints
• latissimus_dorsi
• mid-back muscles
• teres_major
• armpit muscles
• deltoids
• primary shoulder muscles

To be honest, this sounds like a ridiculous amount of detail only useful for anatomical texts instead of e621. These tags would only really be useful for characters with highly defined muscles, and I think artists will often add imaginary muscle groups in such pictures if they think it looks good, so tagging actual muscle groups would often be a futile endeavor. Even when it isn't, very, very few users are going to care about this amount of detail for their muscles.

I think some muscles are worth having tags, as they are so much in interests of people.

• biceps – the bicep curl is a famous thing to show off this muscle
• abs – a.k.a. "six-pack"
• pecs – something very often shown off too as an icon of strength

Any others that should be sustained for relevance at e621?

For gluteus maximus there already is butt.

clawstripe said:

• brachioradialis
• forearm muscles that help the biceps brachii flex the elbow
• scalenes
• neck muscles
• serratus
• back and side muscles along ribcage
• sternocleidomastoid
• neck muscles that show prominently when one turns the head
• trapezius
• big muscles on upper back and back of shoulders
• extensor_carpi
• forearm muscles that manipulate the wrists and hands
• flexor_carpi
• forearm muscles that also manipulate the wrists and hands
• hamstrings
• thigh muscles in rear between hips and knees
• sartorius
• body's longest muscles on the inside of the thighs
• obliques
• a number of muscles around the eyes, in the outer ears, or in the abdomen
• infraspinatus
• back muscles that help move the shoulder joints
• latissimus_dorsi
• mid-back muscles
• teres_major
• armpit muscles
• deltoids
• primary shoulder muscles

To be honest, this sounds like a ridiculous amount of detail only useful for anatomical texts instead of e621. These tags would only really be useful for characters with highly defined muscles, and I think artists will often add imaginary muscle groups in such pictures if they think it looks good, so tagging actual muscle groups would often be a futile endeavor. Even when it isn't, very, very few users are going to care about this amount of detail for their muscles.

Even for the few posts where characters have highly defined muscles I doubt these would really be used, I'd bet most people don't know what the majority of the muscles are even called

urielfrys said:
I think some muscles are worth having tags, as they are so much in interests of people.

• biceps – the bicep curl is a famous thing to show off this muscle
• abs – a.k.a. "six-pack"
• pecs – something very often shown off too as an icon of strength

Any others that should be sustained for relevance at e621?

For gluteus maximus there already is butt.

The main ones that people actually look for (and are currently used widely) are all fine and well in my opinion, though I think that's really all we need

Unless anyone objects I'm going to make a BUR for this later, once I get a full list down (aliasing to *_muscle/muscle)

urielfrys said:
I think some muscles are worth having tags, as they are so much in interests of people.

• biceps – the bicep curl is a famous thing to show off this muscle
• abs – a.k.a. "six-pack"
• pecs – something very often shown off too as an icon of strength

...
For gluteus maximus there already is butt.

Those, I have no issue with. They're major muscle groups that are widely known and understood. But the ones Donovon found? Those are excessive for our purposes. Users are not likely to be able to tell other forearm muscles from the biceps. Few are going to care a whole lot about the rest of the muscles as they're typically not well defined in a picture. The teres majors would basically be synonymous with the currently invalidated armpit tag, and deltoids would basically be synonymous with shoulder.

The bulk update request #1849 has been rejected.

Reason: Most of these tags have next to no practical use and as such are tag spam in my eyes. I've never even heard of half of these, and I'd bet most other people haven't either. The only ones that have a significant presence currently (>50 posts) are:
- serratus (1889)
- obliques (2638)
- deltoids (716)
- big_deltoids (297)
- huge_deltoids (132)
- hamstrings (64)

I've left these in currently as this was for the most part auto generated.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1849 (forum #324679) has been rejected by @Donovan_DMC.

I'd love to get others' opinions on BUR #1849, as proposed by donovan_dmc. I can appreciate the sentiment of wanting to reduce the number of seemingly hyper-specific and useless tags, but I think this BUR makes some substantial oversights.

I've outlined my thoughts below:

Are these tags useful?

First, I want to get one thing out of the way. It might be tempting to say something along the lines of:

I've never heard of these muscle names, so therefore they must be of interest to no one but anatomists and physiologists.

But please do not be scared away by the Latin names! The names can be obtuse, but no more so than the names of half the species tags on this site, including pinniped (sea lion, seal, walrus, etc.), herpestid (mongoose), and mephitid (skunks and stink badgers). In fact, several of the muscle groups covered in this BUR are known by slang terms which are in the common vocabulary of most anyone who engages in strength training:

With that preamble out of the way, onto the meat of my post. I think that BUR #1849 is too heavy-handed in aliasing away tags. I know that several of my artist friends and I have searched e621 for references in understanding how to draw some of the major muscle groups on muscular characters, and eliminating all of these tags entirely would make e621 substantially less useful for finding muscular references in furry artwork. Tagging on e621 should not just describe the most-fetishised muscle groups (pecs, abs, biceps), but should also endeavour to maintain usefulness for finding reference material for furry artists.

Below, I describe which tags are most valuable for artistic reference; which tags can safely be aliased without compromising usefulness for artists; and which tags seem ill-defined, and thus probably should be aliased.

Summary

I have advanced an argument as to the usefulness of some -- but not all -- of these tags, and suggested many alternative changes in tag structuring to those put forward in BUR #1849. To summarise:

• BUR #1849 aliases away many major and minor muscle groups alike. Several of the major muscle group tags, such as deltoids and latissimus dorsi, are useful to artists and should not be aliased away.
• Though their names are Latin and intimidating, the major muscle groups are important and identifiable even to the average gym-goer who engages in strength training (albeit by shortened names like "delts" and "lats"). These muscle groups are drawn in detail by many furry artists, and these artists utilise e621's tagging to find artistic references.
• Most big_* and huge_* tags are rarely used and can be included in more general tags without much loss of information. I propose implications and aliases to promote use of the existing muscular_arms, muscular_thighs, big_muscles, and huge_muscles tags, while eliminating hyper-specific tags such as huge_serratus.
• Ultimately, the changes I propose shall create general-purpose muscle group tags which subsume the less popular muscle tags (e.g., neck_muscles instead of scalenes and sternocleidomastoid). This will cut down on tag spam and increase searchability using non-specialist terminology. These changes shall maintain separate tags for the most popular major muscle groups, such as lats and deltoids.

I would love to hear others' thoughts. I have written my suggestions into a set of BURs that could be voted on as an alternative to BUR #1849.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3348 (forum #346169) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

I'd like to chime in as a furry artist who often uses e621 to find reference images specifically because of its extremely thorough tagging system.


BUR #1849 would be a severe detriment to e621.


Artists like myself use e621 to find artistic depictions of all sorts of muscle groups, not just the ones you can spell in six letters or less.


I and others also use these specific muscle tags to find images for personal enjoyment; plenty of people love big trapezius, deltoid, or oblique muscles. How do I know that? I draw commissions, and my commissioners frequently request special emphasis on or enlargement of these and other muscle groups that BUR #1849 is proposing to erase.


Now, I do think some of the more-specific tags can be collapsed into larger umbrella terms the way monroethelizard proposes in BUR #3348. Collapsing the scientific name tags into tags for muscles in the neck, thighs, forearms, etc. makes sense and makes these tags more accessible to most users, without eliminating the usefulness they provide. After all, many people with a fetish for thigh muscles won't know the actual names of the individual muscle groups they're looking for, but are likely to be pleased with the results for searching "muscular_thighs", if such a tag were adopted as a replacement for the current, more-specific ones.


The same goes for artists looking for reference images. After all, if you're looking up references of *any* thigh muscle, you probably need a reference of the entire thigh anyway.


I believe grouping and simplifying muscle tags the way monroethelizard proposes will lead to an increase in these tags being used and searched for. At the very least, it is a far better suggestion than eliminating nearly all muscle tags.


That being said, I would strongly caution against taking this collapsing of tags too far in the future. Tags for the upper- and forearm should remain separate, as should the upper and lower leg, and the front and back of the neck. These are completely distinct muscle groups that often aren't (or even can't be) emphasized simultaneously in a single depiction of a character. Grouping them together would impede effective searching for both artists and muscle fetishists.


As a final note, thank you to everyone who initiates and engages in these sorts of discussions. Continual improvement to the tagging system is what makes e621 the most useful place to search for furry art for both work and pleasure. :3

Actually, a funny use for these tags is to FIND anatomy references. I mean, thinking like a Google user or something.

The bulk update request #3370 is active.

create alias big_abs (1) -> big_muscles (64843)
create alias big_brachioradialis (0) -> big_muscles (64843)
create alias big_calves (2) -> big_muscles (64843)
create alias big_carpi (0) -> big_muscles (64843)
create alias big_extensor_carpi (0) -> big_muscles (64843)
create alias big_flexor_carpi (0) -> big_muscles (64843)
create alias big_infraspinatus (1) -> big_muscles (64843)
create alias big_latissimus_dorsi (0) -> big_muscles (64843)
create alias big_obliques (1) -> big_muscles (64843)
create alias big_sartorius (0) -> big_muscles (64843)
create alias big_scalenes (0) -> big_muscles (64843)
create alias big_serratus (1) -> big_muscles (64843)
create alias big_sternocleidomastoid (0) -> big_muscles (64843)
create alias big_teres_major (0) -> big_muscles (64843)
create alias big_trapezius (2) -> big_muscles (64843)

Reason: See post above (forum #346169)

EDIT: The bulk update request #3370 (forum #346471) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #3371 is active.

create alias huge_abs (2) -> huge_muscles (24009)
create alias huge_brachioradialis (0) -> huge_muscles (24009)
create alias huge_calves (1) -> huge_muscles (24009)
create alias huge_carpi (0) -> huge_muscles (24009)
create alias huge_extensor_carpi (0) -> huge_muscles (24009)
create alias huge_flexor_carpi (1) -> huge_muscles (24009)
create alias huge_infraspinatus (1) -> huge_muscles (24009)
create alias huge_latissimus_dorsi (0) -> huge_muscles (24009)
create alias huge_obliques (1) -> huge_muscles (24009)
create alias huge_sartorius (0) -> huge_muscles (24009)
create alias huge_scalenes (1) -> huge_muscles (24009)
create alias huge_serratus (0) -> huge_muscles (24009)
create alias huge_sternocleidomastoid (0) -> huge_muscles (24009)
create alias huge_teres_major (0) -> huge_muscles (24009)
create alias huge_trapezius (1) -> huge_muscles (24009)

Reason: See post above (forum #346169)

EDIT: The bulk update request #3371 (forum #346472) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

+1 for BUR #3348 , BUR #3370 , and BUR #3371

The bulk requests made by monroethelizard are very well orgamized and pristine. As someone who helps out with tagging posts (often with muscle-related tags), I feel like these tags need a bit of a clean-up indeed. Here’s hoping that these BURs will get approved.

I do have a question though: If we decide to alias specific big and huge muscles to the big_muscles and huge_muscles tags (as seen in the second and third BURs), what about the specific hyper muscles? Shouldn’t we make a fourth BUR aliasing certain hyper muscles to the hyper_muscles tag?

The bulk update request #4724 is active.

create alias hyper_abs (2) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_brachioradialis (1) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_calves (2) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_carpi (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_extensor_carpi (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_flexor_carpi (1) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_infraspinatus (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_latissimus_dorsi (3) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_obliques (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_sartorius (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_scalenes (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_serratus (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_sternocleidomastoid (1) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_teres_major (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_trapezius (1) -> hyper_muscles (9479)

Reason: Similar to BUR #3370 and BUR #3371 , but for the hyper muscles

See post above (forum #346169) for a broader explanation.

EDIT: The bulk update request #4724 (forum #364464) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

monroethelizard said:
With that preamble out of the way, onto the meat of my post. I think that BUR #1849 is too heavy-handed in aliasing away tags. I know that several of my artist friends and I have searched e621 for references in understanding how to draw some of the major muscle groups on muscular characters, and eliminating all of these tags entirely would make e621 substantially less useful for finding muscular references in furry artwork. Tagging on e621 should not just describe the most-fetishised muscle groups (pecs, abs, biceps), but should also endeavour to maintain usefulness for finding reference material for furry artists.

Looking at art references for your own art seems like a good way to mess up. An artist's primary reference for anatomy should be from real-life anatomy books on the subject. Trying to learn from other peoples' art is like trying to copy from a copy, you'll end up duplicating their mistakes or exaggerating their exaggerations, and eventually end up with something that doesn't look like what you're actually trying to make anymore (then get into tagging fights when you try to tag it, and others come along and say it looks nothing like it, but you say that's what it's intended to be, and they say no, and you say...). I would strongly advise aspiring artists against using furry art as a primary anatomy reference for whatever can be found with tags here.

Art as a secondary or tertiary guide may make more sense, but even then, I suspect it would be more useful to gravitate toward artists that are known to have good anatomy, or a particular style of anatomy you're interested in building off of, rather than a random smattering of images that happen to have the tags made by random people of varying skill levels.

watsit said:
Looking at art references for your own art seems like a good way to mess up.

As an artist myself, I can tell you it doesn't just seem like a good way to mess up, it is a good way to mess up. No matter who draws it or what the subject is, art has inherent stylization built right into it. Muscle groups in art can be problematic with that stylization. Sometimes, they're left out, while other times, muscles that have no correlation with actual muscle groups can be added in for effect. It's best to do what all those artists doing anatomy sketches are doing and reference real life muscle anatomy directly, thus all your stylizations will be all yours and not the equivalent of xeroxpox on fifth generation photocopies of a photograph.

watsit said:
Looking at art references for your own art seems like a good way to mess up. An artist's primary reference for anatomy should be...

clawstripe said:
As an artist myself, [agreement].

You make a valid point. I think most anyone would agree that it's ill-advised to learn figure anatomy by using e621's catalogue as your primary or sole reference material. That doesn't denigrate the value it holds as a secondary resource, though.

I mean people could use it to learn stylizations.

By the way, great job on the BUR monroethelizard 👍

urielfrys said:
I think some muscles are worth having tags, as they are so much in interests of people.

• biceps – the bicep curl is a famous thing to show off this muscle
• abs – a.k.a. "six-pack"
• pecs – something very often shown off too as an icon of strength

Any others that should be sustained for relevance at e621?

For gluteus maximus there already is butt.

You could get a "muscular butt" tag for particularly toned butts, but using the scientific term is just silly.

zenith-pendragon said:
The bulk update request #4724 is active.

create alias hyper_abs (2) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_brachioradialis (1) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_calves (2) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_carpi (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_extensor_carpi (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_flexor_carpi (1) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_infraspinatus (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_latissimus_dorsi (3) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_obliques (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_sartorius (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_scalenes (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_serratus (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_sternocleidomastoid (1) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_teres_major (0) -> hyper_muscles (9479)
create alias hyper_trapezius (1) -> hyper_muscles (9479)

Reason: Similar to BUR #3370 and BUR #3371 , but for the hyper muscles

See post above (forum #346169) for a broader explanation.

The misuse of hyper is one of my personal pet peeves, not a single set of abs under the tag look different than normal, fairly realistic abs.

post #1448125

What's hyper about this?

The bulk update request #1849 (forum #324679) has been rejected by @Donovan_DMC.

The bulk update request #4724 (forum #364464) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #3371 (forum #346472) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #3370 (forum #346471) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

I probably should have formatted my original posts a bit differently when I made my comments a year ago, but please don't forget about BUR #3348! It's the one at the bottom of my original post's "Possible alternative BUR" dropdown.

The bulk update request #3348 (forum #346169) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.