Aliasing muscular_intersex → muscles
Link to alias

Reason:

We don't do adjective_noun tags. further, muscles and intersex suffice more than enough for the purpose this tag was being improperly used for.

Alternatively, alias to intersex, if it is deemed more appropriate. From what I saw, muscles seemed the most appropriate usage. Possibly big_muscles.

Well we have muscular_female. Why not muscular_intersex?

Wyvrn said:
Well we have muscular_female. Why not muscular_intersex?

This, I'd agree with an implication to muscles for example, but not an alias.

There's plenty of adjective_noun general tags in use. Big_breasts, long_hair, rough_sex, tapering_penis,... If muscular_female is a valid tag, then so is muscular_intersex.

It's not a tag that I'd personally use, but searching for muscles intersex only works for solo images. And since there are 800+ images and it's been tagged by several users, it's likely useful to some. Possibly even as a blacklist tag.

I'm in favor of implicating it instead.

Genjar said:
There's plenty of adjective_noun general tags in use. Big_breasts, long_hair, rough_sex, tapering_penis,... If muscular_female is a valid tag, then so is muscular_intersex.

Not those style of adjective_noun tags; Ones relating to gender. Sorry, should have been more clear.

Regarding muscular_female, it should also be aliased away.

EDIT: For the record: https://e621.net/forum/show/33366

123easy said:
Regarding muscular_female, it should also be aliased away.

I disagree. There's like 3000 images using that tag. If we get rid of it, there's no way to find muscular females in non-solo images. Searching muscular female -solo is mostly muscular guys with non-muscular girls.

Wyvrn said:
I disagree. There's like 3000 images using that tag. If we get rid of it, there's no way to find muscular females in non-solo images. Searching muscular female -solo is mostly muscular guys with non-muscular girls.

(In case it's not obvious, I really love this quote)

KloH0und said:
Get as close as you can with a search without excluding possibly desirable results, then rifle through the individual posts to find what you want.

The tag system is just a tool, and like any tool it has its limitations. You still have to do certain things yourself.

There are plenty of other concepts that cannot be searched for, such as (male sub)+(female dom) or (male manly)+(female girly) and many other variants that include gender in the combination. Just because they have existed without being addressed doesn't mean they should continue to exist.

That's true, every system has it's limitations. But that's never a reson to add another limitation to the system. This tag exists and it's widely-used and it's useful, you'd need a good reason to remove it.

Muscular_female is an especially important tag because the vast majority of images tagged muscular are only muscular men. Even if generally we don't use adjective_gender tags, we should make an exception for muscular_female since muscular females are so out of the ordinary, and thus very difficult to find (in non-solo situations) through any other combination of tags.

123easy said:
Regarding muscular_female, it should also be aliased away.

Argh, that's one of my favorite tags :(

Even though I'm not into herms and such I still think everyone should get to search for exactly what they like. Tags being specific is not a bad thing in my mind.

Tangent said:
Argh, that's one of my favorite tags :(

Even though I'm not into herms and such I still think everyone should get to search for exactly what they like. Tags being specific is not a bad thing in my mind.

Sorry to hear that. :<

As my favourite quote above states and as we users and the admins themselves have said historically, searching for the exact is just too constrictive. Search for the general and then sift for the images that suit your needs.

https://e621.net/forum/show/33366 has a lot of good reasoning for why.

It also has a lot of good reasoning for why muscular_female should be kept. SnowWolf makes a particularly good argument.

SnowWolf said:
I think we should keep this tag... because some gender-specific tags are needed (female_ejaculation, female_domination, male_pregnancy etc) in cases where alternate searches would not produce the same results without a large number of false results.

Wyvrn said:
It also has a lot of good reasoning for why muscular_female should be kept. SnowWolf makes a particularly good argument.

Male pregnancy is needed because males being pregnant is not the norm. Female ejaculation the same- though more common than male pregnancy, it is by far not the norm (and could even be represented by squirting, which is aliased to it, though wasn't for purposes of standardization of tag format). Pregnancy and ejaculation are related to the sexual organs and as such do require that clarification.

Female domination is not needed in the same vein. Same for muscular female or muscular intersex.

123easy said:
Female domination is not needed in the same vein. Same for muscular female or muscular intersex.

No, they are fetishes, so they are needed. We're not writing a dictionary here.

Nor is a dictionary the intent. Standardization, however, is. Everything and anything can be a fetish; Using that as a qualifier leaves it far too open for interpretation for what tags are appropriate. Issues where sex and terms regarding characteristics of those sexes is involved are a very small, well-defined grouping of tags and possible tags.

Standardization is fine, but if your standards demand the deletion of several widely-used, popular tags that can't be replaced with any combination of other tags, maybe it's not those tags that are the problem, maybe it's your standards.

Wyvrn said:
Standardization is fine, but if your standards demand the deletion of several widely-used, popular tags that can't be replaced with any combination of other tags, maybe it's not those tags that are the problem, maybe it's your standards.

Take that up with the people that began those standards that the site follows, then. If we could codify an entirely new tag standard that properly allows us to tag specific sexes in specific situations, that limits the abuse potential of people creating bad tags, I wouldn't be adverse to it. But, until such a new system is devised, I'm going to stick to what we do have, which is better than just leaving things as is since that promotes turning the site's tagging schema into a pile of chaotic dreck.

123easy said:
Nor is a dictionary the intent. Standardization, however, is. Everything and anything can be a fetish; Using that as a qualifier leaves it far too open for interpretation for what tags are appropriate. Issues where sex and terms regarding characteristics of those sexes is involved are a very small, well-defined grouping of tags and possible tags.

The intent, as stated by our newest headmin(does that work for head admin? I kinda like it.), is to aid in searching for material.
Both of the tags in question do so.

Halite said:
The intent, as stated by our newest headmin(does that work for head admin? I kinda like it.), is to aid in searching for material.
Both of the tags in question do so.

Applying it that broadly means that anything and everything is now a tag because it *can* aid in searching for material. Which is ludicrous.

123easy said:
Applying it that broadly means that anything and everything is now a tag because it *can* aid in searching for material. Which is ludicrous.

Only if it fits under TWYS which these clearly do.

123easy said:
We don't do adjective_noun tags.

So we're good to go with removing those (color)_dragon tags then?

Halite said:
Only if it fits under TWYS which these clearly do.

Many things would technically fall under TWYS if we allowed any tag that aided in searching for material. Technically, Flutterbat and Pinkamena and Princess Molestia and Cutie Mark Crusaders and batpony, just to name a few from current history, all aid searching for material.

Just because it aids searching doesn't mean it shouldn't be restricted to the schema of the tagging format currently in use on the site to properly have it searchable, tagged properly, and tagged intuitively so that similar tags searched using already existing tags will be processed appropriately. This is the primary meaning of standardization of which I speak.

The issue with gender_term/term_gender tags is that they are already specified one way. Changing a single example to make an exception is the wrong way to do it. Again, if someone were to come up with a decent codification (and no, the bustyboi spreadsheet that uses gender (mental) or whether the character in question has muscles or not to tag sex is not acceptably decent) that appropriately deals with it and could be rolled out as a whole change, as the TWYS alteration to include names was, then that would be fine and I would encourage such a change. Until then, the system as it has been and has worked just fine is what I will stand behind.

So we're good to go with removing those (color)_dragon tags then?

Removing those images that aren't of the (color)_dragon species, perfecty. Removing teh species tags for those that identify as (color)_dragon as their species? Never. I already accepted Sollux's compromise on the topic as that would deal with the ambiguity of the tag name while still retaining the species tag for those that actually identify accordingly, and if that went forward I would be fine with that, since that retains searchability, appropriate species tagging, and clears up ambiguity, while also adding further functionality to searches through the (color)_scales tag.

Either way, that was really low of you to bring that up in an intentionally provocative manner.

123easy said:
Either way, that was really low of you to bring that up in an intentionally provocative manner.

On the contrary, I was merely pointing out that your arguement is one that you yourself disagreed with not long ago.

Halite said:
On the contrary, I was merely pointing out that your arguement is one that you yourself disagreed with not long ago.

Ah, but I did not. I did in fact ackonwledge the problem of people slapping the (color)_dragon tags on any dragon that matched the scale colour regardless of being of the appropriate species or not, but was at a loss, initially, for how to resolve. Sollux's idea to specify it with the "_(species)" suffix for those that are actual Black Dragons as their species, not merely dragons with black scales, resolved that, and, as I noted above, was something I happily agreed to as it resolved all issues involved.

What I was against and still am against is the wholesale removal of the tag when it is a legitimate species within the catagorization of dragonkin- to address that argument before it starts, whether it's fictional or not has nothing to do with it.