Topic: [REJECTED] Additional body type implications

The bulk update request #1949 has been rejected.

Reason: I think the following implications could be helpful. overweight through morbidly_obese as well as muscular seem to have been done in this fashion already, but slim and slightly_chubby don't appear to have been covered. I've also included short, but I've excluded short_taur in case that might be a useless tag that would get aliased away anyway.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1949 (forum #326198) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The slightly_chubby section of this BUR has already been approved in topic #34141, bar a few cleanups pending in topic #30445.

i'llkogyourmaw said:
short_male, short_female, short_intersex, short_andromorph, short_andromorph, short_gynomorph, short_herm, short_maleherm, short_anthro, short_human, short_humanoid

These should be aliased away, as there's no reasonable TWYS definition for "short" in a fictional drawing. It's ambiguous as to whether age, species, or form should factor into it (is a normal size feral cat "short"? is a smaller mouse anthro "short" next to a normal size dog anthro? is a normal size baby "short"?), and it would constantly get mixed up with smaller_* tags (a character being smaller than another isn't necessarily "short", it could be the other character is very tall).

As it is, short_male is heavily mistagged, the example in the wiki has no reference for dictating the character is short, and the four latest posts shown in the wiki are also invalid:
post #3511490
There's no reference for the characters' heights, so there's no way to know whether it's a short fox, or a tall gazelle.

post #3509392
Again no reference for the characters' heights, and they're not even that different from each other.

post #3508390
No height reference again, he doesn't look short.

post #3504780
Looks normal size.

If all the latest posts with it, and even the wiki itself can't get it right, there's no good reason to keep it.

watsit said:
These should be aliased away, as there's no reasonable TWYS definition for "short" in a fictional drawing. It's ambiguous as to whether age, species, or form should factor into it (is a normal size feral cat "short"? is a smaller mouse anthro "short" next to a normal size dog anthro? is a normal size baby "short"?), and it would constantly get mixed up with smaller_* tags (a character being smaller than another isn't necessarily "short", it could be the other character is very tall).

As it is, short_male is heavily mistagged, the example in the wiki has no reference for dictating the character is short, and the four latest posts shown in the wiki are also invalid:
post #3511490
There's no reference for the characters' heights, so there's no way to know whether it's a short fox, or a tall gazelle.

post #3509392
Again no reference for the characters' heights, and they're not even that different from each other.

post #3508390
No height reference again, he doesn't look short.

post #3504780
Looks normal size.

If all the latest posts with it, and even the wiki itself can't get it right, there's no good reason to keep it.

The way I determine "short" is typically if there's context, like commonly understood objects for comparison, or if there's another character in the scene who is taller, or, for lack of either of those if they have a proportionally large head.

i'llkogyourmaw said:
The way I determine "short" is typically if there's context, like commonly understood objects for comparison, or if there's another character in the scene who is taller, or, for lack of either of those if they have a proportionally large head.

That's not how it's used, and against the wiki's own description. "In case a male character is smaller than another character while still being of relatively average height then the smaller male tag should be applied instead." for small_male. Just because a character is shorter than another doesn't mean they're short, it could be the other character is tall. Macro and micro (and macro_on_micro) have the same problem, being over-tagged in pairs when there's no reference to whether the smaller character is micro next to a normal size character, of if the larger character is macro next to a normal size character. Even if cases where the background makes it clear that one is normal sized, people still try to tag them macro or micro.

As it is, the vast majority of posts tagged with small_male has no context for comparison for whether the character is short or not. The wiki's own example doesn't even have a character that looks short (unless you want to claim all high-angle_view pics without contextual information are short), it's simply based on the knowledge that Rocket is short, not that he looks short. A disproportionately large head is indicative of a large head, not overall size (there's plenty of stylizations that can create a large head without changing the size of the character), but even then it's typically to make the character look young or chibi, which would be more appropriate tags than short. And the short tag itself is exceedingly generic and ambiguous. A short penis? A short arm? A short leg? A short straw? Short pants? Short shirt? Short building? A short tree? A short shrub? People aren't going to read the wiki when they don't have reason to, so if they see something short, and see that short is a valid tag, they're going to tag it even if it's not what the wiki says to tag it for. See the issues with pool and dock.

The bulk update request #1949 (forum #326198) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.