(Retracted) Imply bad anatomy to sub tags

BUR #34363 has been rejected.

create implication bad_face -> bad_anatomy
create implication bad_hands -> bad_anatomy
create implication bad_leg -> bad_anatomy
create implication bad_ass -> bad_anatomy
create implication bad_vulva -> bad_anatomy
create implication bad_neck -> bad_anatomy

These all fall under the umbrella of the tag bad_anatomy. Theres also the issue of bad_proportions existing when bad_anatomy already exists. So I propose we also deprecate it and garden it (2.2k posts) into the appropriate tags and create new bad_x if there are significant gaps (i.e maybe bad_penis and bad_torso etc)

I don't see why bad proportions should go, it's a specific subset of artistic errors relating to, well, proportions in general (instead of a specific bodypart).

Yes. I can imagine a character with all of their body parts looking fine individually, but creating an abomination when put together. I think the implications are good, but I would put the deprecation in it’s own BUR so it can be voted on separately.

Blank_User said:

Yes. I can imagine a character with all of their body parts looking fine individually, but creating an abomination when put together. I think the implications are good, but I would put the deprecation in it’s own BUR so it can be voted on separately.

Second this

ANON_TOKYO said:

I don't see why bad proportions should go, it's a specific subset of artistic errors relating to, well, proportions in general (instead of a specific bodypart).

Then why does bad anatomy exist? They both cover the same thing do they not? Bad anatomy covers a specific part or the entire body, as does proportions.

Will edit it out though.

BUR #34366 has been rejected.

deprecate bad_proportions

Seperated out as per multiple requests. Bad anatomy can cover mean the entire body as a whole is bad or specific parts can, as can bad proportions, to me they are one and the same.

The bulk update request #34363 (forum #321853) has been rejected by @Artxe.

The bulk update request #34366 (forum #321867) has been rejected by @Artxe.

Why did you reject the first BUR though? And the second?

blindVigil said:

Why did you reject the first BUR though? And the second?

First one was edited after votes were cast at least.

blindVigil said:

Why did you reject the first BUR though? And the second?

I edited it to remove bad_proportions and didnt realise it makes it invalid. Was just told in the discord: "Btw the original one won't be approved now because it was edited after a few people voted for it"

New post here: forum #321874