The bulk update request #8894 is pending approval.

create alias wide_hipped_ambiguous (15) -> wide_hips (306873)
create alias wide_hipped_intersex (1214) -> wide_hips (306873)

Reason: specificity, sometimes I do want to look for males of all builds with wide hips and simply searching male wide_hips doesn't cut it for images that are not solo for example.PS: rather surprised given the number of posts some of these have that no one has added wiki's to any of these yet...

Related: topic #44287

The bulk update request #8896 is pending approval.

create alias wide_hipped_human (9) -> wide_hips (306873)
create alias wide_hipped_anthro (5254) -> wide_hips (306873)
create alias wide_hipped_feral (381) -> wide_hips (306873)
create alias wide_hipped_humanoid (1351) -> wide_hips (306873)
create alias wide_hipped_taur (0) -> wide_hips (306873)

Reason: body form types

ryu_deacon said:
create implication wide_hipped_gynomorph (539) -> wide_hips (282881)
create implication wide_hipped_andromorph (22) -> wide_hips (282881)
create implication wide_hipped_herm (16) -> wide_hips (282881)
create implication wide_hipped_maleherm (4) -> wide_hips (282881)

These should imply wide_hipped_intersex instead of wide_hips. wide_hipped_intersex will implicate wide_hips, adding it that way.

watsit said:
These should imply wide_hipped_intersex instead of wide_hips. wide_hipped_intersex will implicate wide_hips, adding it that way.

pardon me, missed that thank you. corrected now.

The bulk update request #8897 has been rejected.

create implication wide_hipped_female (16050) -> female (2539428)
create implication wide_hipped_male (2439) -> male (2495256)
create implication wide_hipped_intersex (1214) -> intersex (244859)
create implication wide_hipped_gynomorph (1171) -> gynomorph (192907)
create implication wide_hipped_andromorph (24) -> andromorph (23300)
create implication wide_hipped_herm (29) -> herm (27165)
create implication wide_hipped_maleherm (4) -> maleherm (4444)
create implication wide_hipped_ambiguous (15) -> ambiguous_gender (311786)

Reason: gender implications

EDIT: The bulk update request #8897 (forum #413863) has been rejected by @Ryu_Deacon.

Nobody's voted on this yet. Anyone have any thoughts?
My first inclination is to say that wide hips are more or less standard on females, and it might arguably be more sensible to tag narrow_hipped_female instead as that's more of an exception to the norm - though I'm not really opposed to the tag existing either, I just don't know if it'll be very useful there.
wide_hipped_male, on the other hand, definitely seems useful since males have narrow hips by default and wide hips is the exception. male wide_hips is polluted with female characters paired with males with standard hips, so being able to specifically search for or filter that out would be nice. Though, you could also argue that wide_hipped_male is roughly synonymous with femboy. You theoretically could have wide hips on an otherwise completely masculine male, but that would be a very rare situation. On the other hand, not all femboys have distinctly wide hips, so this could still have some utility even then.

spe said:
Nobody's voted on this yet. Anyone have any thoughts?
My first inclination is to say that wide hips are more or less standard on females, and it might arguably be more sensible to tag narrow_hipped_female instead as that's more of an exception to the norm - though I'm not really opposed to the tag existing either, I just don't know if it'll be very useful there.
wide_hipped_male, on the other hand, definitely seems useful since males have narrow hips by default and wide hips is the exception. male wide_hips is polluted with female characters paired with males with standard hips, so being able to specifically search for or filter that out would be nice. Though, you could also argue that wide_hipped_male is roughly synonymous with femboy. You theoretically could have wide hips on an otherwise completely masculine male, but that would be a very rare situation. On the other hand, not all femboys have distinctly wide hips, so this could still have some utility even then.

A while ago I made a BUR that suggested to alias away these tags, but my resistance against these tags mostly bases on the fact that back then a lot of them have been added by the same user without any prior discussion.
On one hand, the tags might have some use like you described.
On the other hand, these tags might give users the idea to create even more wide_hipped_* tags or other combinations. I definitely see this going into the direction of tag bloat. I doubt we want all possible combinations of breast size and genders for example. Don't want to deal with big_breasted_gynomorph, thick_thighed_male, huge_butted_anthro and so on.
I also don't know if the use of these is really big enough. While I'm uncertain about the wide_hipped_gender tags (personal opinion, I simply don't see myself using them), I'm fully against the wide_hipped_form tags.

The bulk update request #8897 (forum #413863) has been rejected by @Ryu_Deacon.

spe said:
Nobody's voted on this yet. Anyone have any thoughts?
My first inclination is to say that wide hips are more or less standard on females, and it might arguably be more sensible to tag narrow_hipped_female instead as that's more of an exception to the norm - though I'm not really opposed to the tag existing either, I just don't know if it'll be very useful there.
wide_hipped_male, on the other hand, definitely seems useful since males have narrow hips by default and wide hips is the exception. male wide_hips is polluted with female characters paired with males with standard hips, so being able to specifically search for or filter that out would be nice. Though, you could also argue that wide_hipped_male is roughly synonymous with femboy. You theoretically could have wide hips on an otherwise completely masculine male, but that would be a very rare situation. On the other hand, not all femboys have distinctly wide hips, so this could still have some utility even then.

I will say that common body shape and rarity are not necessarily legitimate reasons for not having a tag for a feature. However I am actually rather confused what I was thinking when I wrote this set of BURs>>; BURs have been corrected to fit the site standard of not having specifications for tag groups such as wide_* or thick_* for example.

Little update: In my last comment I voiced the concern that users might get the idea to create more combination tags akin to the wide_hipped_* ones.
I just noticed that exactly that is happening. Somebody came up with the idea to create hourglass_figured_* tags. Already a couple hundred posts are tagged.

It's bcd123. Yeah that checks out

snpthecat said:
It's bcd123. Yeah that checks out

Is that user known for creating unnecessary tags?