Tag: curvy calves

Posted under Tags

I've occasionally thought there should be a tag for "curvy calves," and I'm wondering if this is something it would be acceptable for me to create. I've never created a tag before, and I don't want to do it if it's not something other people would appreciate and use themselves. I'm also wondering if it would be better as a pool (I've also never created a pool), though I do think it's more objectively descriptive than pools are meant to be. Um... I'm assuming the way to create a tag is simply to add it to an image's list of tags. If I did that, I'd probably feel a compulsion to start looking through practically every image on the site for things to add the tag to. How many years would that take, I wonder? Also, when one creates a new tag, is it a good idea to also create a new wiki entry for it, even if I don't have much to say about it? And do wiki entries automatically get linked to and from the tags they're about?

I apologize if most of these questions are answered in FAQs. I've looked through some such things, but didn't come across any answers, possibly because I'm unobservant.

It would just be... pictures where a character's calf has a particularly rounded arc. Probably doesn't mean much to a lot of people, it's certainly not important. And I can't really think of a standardized definition that everyone would agree on. Even I myself would sometimes be unsure whether to tag a pic with that tag or not. Especially at a time like this, when I'm trying to explain exactly what I mean... I feel a greater need to be precise than I probably normally would. (Just talking about it at all makes the whole thing seem more ridiculous than it normally does to me.) But I'll take a few minutes to search for examples...

post #1410012
post #1366395
post #1366171
post #1352717
post #1321590
post #1105398
post #1446765


I think "curvy" is both too specific and ill-defined. How about just calves? Style it like legs, with a Wiki entry like this:

When one or both calves are one of the focus of the image. Do not simply tag this for all images in which the legs are a focus; the curve of the calf should be clearly visible and noticeably on display.

See also

By that criteria, I think all your pictures should fit, though I think post #1352717 and post #1366171 are debatable.

You should also consider whether or not calves covered by thighhighs, pantyhose, and other legwear count.

Edit: Oh, I should probably add some discussion of your first post. Yes, it's a good idea to discuss tags here. A great one, actually. (Welcome!) Yes, a wiki entry is a good idea, though you don't have to if the tag is unambiguous from the name, like red-framed glasses. Yes, it gets automatically associated with the entry via the ? near the tag name. (That's a good way to go start one.)


Possibly specifying "curvy" instead of just "calves" means it would be better as a pool than a tag, though I might try to think of a better adjective than curvy. I don't want to just do a calves tag, because what I have in mind is calves that are more rounded than most of the pictures on the site (though I'm sure a great many would fit my criteria, however ill-defined that may be). There are plenty of calves that are just too... flat, or angular, or other things, whether because of the character's posture or the angle of the picture itself, or just because of the artist's style. All of which is perfectly fine, but not the point of the tag I was thinking of making.

I would include calves that are covered by various legwear, even boots.

But anyway... it's all very subjective, which I think is an issue with a great many tags that already exist on the site. People could disagree with whether a picture qualifies for any particular tag, and certainly lots of tags, such as my suggestion, would reasonably be seen as redundant by some people. One could say that if the tag "legs" exists, there's no need for "thighs" or "bare legs" or "long legs" or "crossed legs" or anything like that. But those things exist because there are people who find such tags desirable, even if they're not necessary. Still, the more I think about it, the more I think my suggestion would probably be better as a pool. I dunno.

Oh, and post #1366171 I totally agree is debatable. I myself am unsure whether I'd prefer to call it the minimum curvature to warrant the tag, or the maximum curvature to not warrant the tag. I don't find post #1352717 as debatable, but if you do, that just proves how subjective these things are.