Danbooru

[bulk] Anatomical Nonsense Deimplication

Posted under Tags

.grey

remove implication anatomical_nonsense -> bad_anatomy

Link to request

I find it sort of strange that anatomical nonsense is implied to bad anatomy, when both sound fairly subjective but will see prevalent use anyway. Anatomical nonsense skirts the line of tag group:subjective, after all. Some anatomical nonsense is used for unique artistic appeal, such as in post #2282030 or post #2605869 where the proportions are obviously and intentionally drawn ridiculously. Personally, I don't think it detracts from the appeal of the art.

Honestly, we could really use more flexibility with what users are allowed to upload, as some of the posts in anatomical nonsense, although ridiculous, have a unique artistic merit to them that would warrant approving again if they were to be flagged.

anatomical nonsense in itself isn't bad, which bad anatomy seems to convey the idea of. That's why I'm suggesting they be deimplicated, and we make a clear distinction between when to use one or the other, or to use both.

EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1062 (forum #126103) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

Updated by DanbooruBot

Reply
OOZ662

Honestly I think the "bad_" tags were another victim of the lack of foresight on ancient Danbooru. People see "bad anatomy" and immediately take it as an insult or denotation of some fatal flaw rather than simply "this post contains unrealistic human anatomy." It's kinda the same deal with people taking "flags" and red borders as a personal insult.

Anatomical_nonsense sounds like it was meant to represent stuff like post #2604157's "One Piece stretchy-punch-arm" kind of anatomy, and if bad_anatomy were meant to simply represent all forms of "unrealistic" anatomy it would make sense for it to be implied. It is terribly worded though.

Reply
.grey

I'm in agreement with above. But the fact that all the "bad_*" tags so far have given off the impression of being unworthy is kind of concerning, and I don't really know if there's any better sounding tag we can just replace it with. I think there was good reason to nuke poorly drawn as a tag because the tag itself wouldn't be needed if such an image was so poorly drawn it necessitated the tag -- kind of like an impromptu flag but without any of the reviewing procedures, and all of the perceived insult.

As for kuuderes response, it can definitely be argued for, but I'm just more concerned about our usage of bad anatomy, bad proportions, etc. It's something users always get around to asking more frequently in the comments whenever they see it tagged. To be fair though, even under a slightly different tag they'd still probably ask why such an image was tagged "bad x".

If we're going to be renaming them though, I'm against using anything else 'negative' sounding. Anything "bad" or "poor" will inevitably be perceived by the userbase to be unworthy/flag-worthy because of the tag's presence alone. I'm more fond of aliasing or updating the tags to something like incorrect anatomy or incorrect perspective, but I do understand those can be misleading too.

Not sure what better solution I can offer, so I'll just let others chime in.

Reply
feline lump

I don't think the fault lies within the "bad_*" tags themselves. I find them useful and unobtrusive, and I definitely wouldn't be happy to see them go. The renaming strategy hasn't worked in the past either (turning "flag for deletion" into "flag for review" barely curbed any flag debates). The main problem, I feel, is the people who have extremist ideas about them: people who take personal offense to the very existence of art criticism on Danbooru, and people who consistently flag posts well above the borderline for anatomical mistakes. Returning to a stricter form of user moderation could do us some good in this regard.

About the anatomical nonsense tag itself, I think in its current state it's too poorly-defined to be useful. It seems to contain three different concepts:

1. Posts with cartoonishly exaggarated anatomy, like post #1398355 and post #1875138.
2. Posts where the artist's understanding of biological anatomy is bad, like post #99057 and post #1834665.
3. Posts that are simply "too bad" for bad anatomy or bad proportions, like post #2611136 and post #2421501.

I suggest depopulating the tag and separating these three categories. The first could be called cartoon anatomy, including posts like post #2604157, but not any posts that are clearly not being exaggerated for cartoonish effect. This would (hopefully) give it some measure of objectivity and prevent it from becoming the tag equivalent to "it's their style!". The third would be shuffled back into bad anatomy or bad proportions as appropriate. The second case, since it seems to be entirely explicit posts, could be something like impossible sex. Or a more general (if tongue-in-cheek) bad sexology.

Any thoughts on this?

Reply
buehbueh

I strongly back the use of more objective and descriptive tags. I'd avoid using terms such as incorrect, as those only define things exclusively on classical anatomy standards, and don't acknowledge cartoon design conventions. Such variances are to be expected, especially with super deformed designs that are intended to have body forms that don't follow classical or modern anime design ideals.

My version would use these tags:

anatomical_distortion for situations where individual body parts either are cartoonishly formed or shifted beyond a natural form, and as per feline lump's suggestion, use cartoon_anatomy when it's obvious that the artist intended not to go by natural human proportions, or animal proportions but specific deformations common in cartoon art.

proportional_aberration for when bodies as a whole are shifted away from a natural form, either by intent or amateur work/oversight.

warped_perspective could be more useful for describing any situation in which perspective is intentionally or accidentally warped.

Going with this language, focusing on the fact that yes, the element of design in question does go beyond normal conformations, but at the same time may leave reason to respect the work for meeting other major points of value as art, including the intentional manipulation of these things for visual effect.

We could add a disclaimer that such tags imply imperfections of the work, and that such views are in each case bound to produce subjective decisions of quality that may not reflect the body of users as a whole, as well as to quote albert's statement, "Perfect is the enemy of good."

Updated

Reply
.grey

Wow, that is well written. I don't think I have much else to say other than that I'm in favor of buehbueh's (and feline's) suggestion. For the record though, it does look like we'll have to do some elaborate wiki write-ups for these new tags, and also garden/move the current tags to the new ones if or when we do it.

If that proposal is followed through though, that would make it such that "bad_*" tags would be moved under the subjective/do not use tag groups, right? Or would they deserve an alias?

Reply
reiyasona
List of bad_* tags:

(*) No clear connection to bad anatomy. Could also be due to bad perspective or rough/sketchy drawing style (post #605307).

Mikaeri said:

If that proposal is followed through though, that would make it such that "bad_*" tags would be moved under the subjective/do not use tag groups, right? Or would they deserve an alias?

↓↓↓

feline_lump said:

I don't think the fault lies within the "bad_*" tags themselves. I find them useful and unobtrusive, and I definitely wouldn't be happy to see them go. The renaming strategy hasn't worked in the past either (turning "flag for deletion" into "flag for review" barely curbed any flag debates).

+

Please also read:

Reply
1