At the moment, we have two artist tags labeled "shortstack":

https://e621.net/post/index/1/shortstack
https://e621.net/post/index/1/shortstack_%28artist%29

I find this redundant and simply not right. The artist named "shortstack" should be identified only by the tag "shortstack_(artist)", and the tag "shortstack" (no '_(artist)' bit) should be changed from an artist tag to a general tag, because that term also is used to denote any short female character with a big bust and/or ass. What's more, the 'shortstack' tag is already being used on at least four posts to indicate such female characters, yet it's still classified as an artist tag.

Since apparently the only ones who can change a tag's class are the admins, I'm hereby asking Parasprite (who I am told handles tag-related issues for the most part) to change the classification for "shortstack" from artist tag to general tag, and let "shortstack_(artist)" serve as the identifier tag for that artist.

I changed it to a general tag for you, but I don't really think this is a good tag.

We should honestly just disambiguate the tag if it's going to be that much trouble. Shortstack_(artist), shortstack_(build), and shortstack_(food).

you know you are supposed to ask what admins and other users think before starting to use a new tag.

Height tags are rarely used because those are difficult to apply to non-humans. Especially if the background is simple, and if there's only a few characters.

I've actually been thinking for a while that we might have to invalidate tags such as short and tall. Just look at how those are tagged:

post #398482 post #341220 post #759290 post #436404 post #742040

Can you tell which ones are short and which are tall? Because I sure can't.
Here's a spoiler for those: tall, tall, short, tall, short

Genjar said:
Height tags are rarely used because those are difficult to apply to non-humans. Especially if the background is simple, and if there's only a few characters.

I've actually been thinking for a while that we might have to invalidate tags such as short and tall. Just look at how those are tagged:

post #398482 post #341220 post #759290 post #436404 post #742040

Can you tell which ones are short and which are tall? Because I sure can't.
Here's a spoiler for those: tall, tall, short, tall, short

How the hell did that first one get tagged as tall? That looks more like short to me. In actual tagging, though, I'd say none, tall, none, tall, none. Maybe not even that Lugia one, as that's not the "Oh no I'm too tall" hunchover, but a showing-off lean forward.

Furrin_Gok said:
Maybe not even that Lugia one, as that's not the "Oh no I'm too tall" hunchover, but a showing-off lean forward.

Yeah, I think slim would be more suitable for the Lugia. In general, it seems better to tag the builds than the height.

...in that regard, I suppose shortstack could be workable. If it gets tagged for dwarf-like builds. Though I'd prefer something like stocky instead, because of how hard it is to tag height.

Genjar said:
Yeah, I think slim would be more suitable for the Lugia. In general, it seems better to tag the builds than the height.

...in that regard, I suppose shortstack could be workable. If it gets tagged for dwarf-like builds. Though I'd prefer something like stocky instead, because of how hard it is to tag height.

Looking at it, Stocky is a bit thinner-or-taller than Shorstack. Shortstack almost looks like they could curl up into a ball xD

But yeah, Shortstack would be less a tag for height, more for Dwarf-builds. Stocky would be Halfling-builds (Hobbit-builds).

Mutisija said:
you know you are supposed to ask what admins and other users think before starting to use a new tag.

I'm assuming you directed that at Tuvalu, not me. I've only added the shortstack tag to some relevant images-- I never tried to change its classification.

On that note, Mutisija, you really need to actually talk with one of the admins (specifically Parasprite) and clarify whether or not that "ask the admins first thing" is really true, because if I'm remembering correctly what I heard from Parasprite in a similar tagging conversation several months back, he said something along the lines of "if you think a tag is appropriate for X picture, just go for it" (Parasprite, feel free to jump in and correct me if I'm wrong here-- my memory has a tendency to f**k up on me sometimes). The point is, the conflicting info I get on different issues from you and from the admins and from other people is starting to really irritate me.

short_stack already exists. (Only for a few months, but...)

The_Masked_Newfag said:
Since apparently the only ones who can change a tag's class are the admins, I'm hereby asking Parasprite (who I am told handles tag-related issues for the most part) to change the classification for "shortstack" from artist tag to general tag, and let "shortstack_(artist)" serve as the identifier tag for that artist.

If the tag has less than 100 posts on it, you can just add general: before the tag when tagging it.

Mutisija said:
you know you are supposed to ask what admins and other users think before starting to use a new tag.

As long as they aren't removing valid tags to replace it with a new tag, it's fine. I'd still recommend asking the forums first though because there's often a tag already in place for it, which can save you some time.

I don't know of a different tag for this, but I find myself agreeing with Genjar on this one.

Making new tags that don't replace any existing tags - and are also not insulting, stupid, or redundant - are generally good to add directly, but make sure to have a good wiki entry at hand. It's still a good idea to let us admins know about it, or to just make a forum topic about it for discussion, but generally speaking if it's a well thought out tag and not redundant it's very likely a good one.

Also, it's trivial to get rid of bad tags that don't replace anything, that like 5 buttons that need to be pressed to wipe it from the tag history.