Aliasing shortstack → short_stack
Link to alias

Reason:

Short_stack is becoming a popular definition tag, but many folks are tagging images with shortstack instead. To remove the confusion and hassle of two tags meaning the same thing, I propose that the tag shortstack be auto changed to short_stack (as short_stack contains the definition of the tag whereas shortstack does not)

What exactly is a shortstack?

related to chibi / short?

titanmelon said:
What exactly is a shortstack?

related to chibi / short?

I was thinking chimneys

Generally the character is an adult or otherwise mature. The character is female and has wide hips, short legs with thick thighs, and may or may not have a large bust.

Sort and "stacked" is the origin name of it.

This bypasses chibi as they may be drawn in quite a serious manner and may not exhibit any super deformed attributes.

Such as post #813524

Or post #950093

Umm, this is just to fuse two tags that mean the same thing into one that universally used. Can anyone help?

Daneasaur said:
Umm, this is just to fuse two tags that mean the same thing into one that universally used. Can anyone help?

Admins have a lot on their plates. Just be patient.

Short stack overlaps with stocky. Are they distinct enough to keep? If not, I'd rather keep the latter. Since the former is limited to females.

^ I agree in principle but want to point out that most of the females I can see in stocky wouldn't count as shortstack.

Also shortstack really has nothing to do with shoulders, if stocky was used it would have to be in combination with short and probably (big|huge|hyper)_breasts .

Yeah, that's true. Many of them wouldn't fit under stocky.

savageorange said:
Also shortstack really has nothing to do with shoulders, if stocky was used it would have to be in combination with short and probably (big|huge|hyper)_breasts

We've been trying to move away from using the short and tall tags, because those don't mesh well with twys and tend to get tagged by outside information. Tagging specific features and the body shape should be prioritized over anything that relies on height.

Based on how it is currently tagged, short_stack is simply a random mix of wide_hips, thick_thighs, slightly_chubby and big_breasts. Plus some big_head. Not to mention that we generally don't use sex-specific tags, especially not ones that are restricted to a single sex, with no equivalent tags for other sexes.

This doesn't seem like a valid tag to me. If there needs to be a tag for that shape, something like bottom_heavy or pear_shaped would work better.

Genjar said:
Based on how it is currently tagged, short_stack is simply a random mix of wide_hips, thick_thighs, slightly_chubby and big_breasts. Plus some big_head.

Not complete, but true insofar as it goes.

We've been trying to move away from using the short and tall tags, because those don't mesh well with twys

Well, it's pretty integral here AFAICS. Take a 7-heads-high character with wide_hips thick_thighs slightly_chubby big_breasts ..
post #977443 or post #968111

...does not look like shortstack, because height dramatically effects the appearance of those traits.

Might qualify as shortstack:

* post #977480 (est. 4.6 heads high)

Technically not shortstack but close enough, ie. looks roughly right:

• post #965314

* post #900424 (legs are notably too long)

Definitely not shortstack:

• post #961089 (hold me, I'm scared)
• post #958372 (8 heads high
• post #919160
• post #910683

Not to mention that we generally don't use sex-specific tags, especially not ones that are restricted to a single sex, with no equivalent tags for other sexes.

Hey, I'm not promoting it per se, I'm just saying that..

If there needs to be a tag for that shape, something like bottom_heavy or pear_shaped would work better.

.. well, right now I'm saying I don't see how that has anything to do with shortstack.
At all.

EDIT: I can kind of see why you might think that, but imo that's just the consequence of cramming the same features into less height (ie. just exaggerates typical female body shape)

But overall I was gonna say, what you are proposing as 'equivalent' doesn't seem to really be equivalent.

Genjar said:
Yeah, that's true. Many of them wouldn't fit under stocky.

We've been trying to move away from using the short and tall tags, because those don't mesh well with twys and tend to get tagged by outside information. Tagging specific features and the body shape should be prioritized over anything that relies on height.

Based on how it is currently tagged, short_stack is simply a random mix of wide_hips, thick_thighs, slightly_chubby and big_breasts. Plus some big_head. Not to mention that we generally don't use sex-specific tags, especially not ones that are restricted to a single sex, with no equivalent tags for other sexes.

This doesn't seem like a valid tag to me. If there needs to be a tag for that shape, something like bottom_heavy or pear_shaped would work better.

Regardless, wouldn't it work to still umbrella that under a single tag before we make it alias to somethign else?

As it stands there are over 200 separate tags under Short_stack and shortstack respectively.

Daneasaur said:
As it stands there are over 200 separate tags under Short_stack and shortstack respectively.

That figure is now 4000 and 500. When used correctly, the tag is useful for people who appreciate the bodytype it describes - females (or males) who are both noticeably shorter and notably curvier than the average humanoid. savageorange did a perfect job of outlined why combinations of other tags don't get the right result.

post #1142806, post #240206, post #1441951
are great examples of the right proportions in my mind. The head is 1/4 - 1/3 the total height, and the hips are wider than the shoulders.

Admittedly, the tag needs a good cleaning up. Going through the pages, there are too many images of characters who are curvy but not particularly short or vice versa.

jockjamdoorslam said:
Admittedly, the tag needs a good cleaning up. Going through the pages, there are too many images of characters who are curvy but not particularly short or vice versa.

Considering how vague the wiki is and how inconsistently it is tagged, I'm still not in favor of keeping it.

For example, it seems to have been mass-tagged for animal crossing characters such as:
post #1411826 post #1416654 post #1333016

Probably by outside information, just like the short tag. Most of them don't look short to me, just chubby or curvy. Which we already have tags for.

Genjar said:
Considering how vague the wiki is and how inconsistently it is tagged, I'm still not in favor of keeping it.

For example, it seems to have been mass-tagged for animal crossing characters such as:
post #1411826 post #1416654 post #1333016

Probably by outside information, just like the short tag. Most of them don't look short to me, just chubby or curvy. Which we already have tags for.

Well maybe you’re not too good at looking. I can tell a shortstack easily from multiple indicators...head/body ratio, squashed proportions, etc. I mean you’re basically acting like if you saw a picture of a midget you’d have NO IDEA they were a midget unless an average person stood beside them.

I think it’s a good tag, and a tag that people obviously want. There’s no easy way to track down shortstacks without it.

Dyrone said:
Well maybe you’re not too good at looking. I can tell a shortstack easily from multiple indicators...head/body ratio, squashed proportions, etc.

Which makes no sense whatsoever, considering that creatures such as giants and ogres are often drawn with those same body proportions. Trying to determine height of a fantasy creature without any frame of reference is mostly based on outside information, not what's visible.

Tagging overall body shape is fine, but it needs far better definition. One that that doesn't rely on height. There's too many and/ors and mays in the current wiki, and the usage of subjective terms ('cute') makes it worse.

Genjar said:
Which makes no sense whatsoever, considering that creatures such as giants and ogres are often drawn with those same body proportions. Trying to determine height of a fantasy creature without any frame of reference is mostly based on outside information, not what's visible.

Tagging overall body shape is fine, but it needs far better definition. One that that doesn't rely on height. There's too many and/ors and mays in the current wiki, and the usage of subjective terms ('cute') makes it worse.

It’s not nessecarily based on height. I would argue that a giant Midna terrorizing a city that still had the proportions of a shortstack could still be tagged as such. You’re just creating a problem out of nothing by being hyper-literal like Amelia Bedelia.

Also I notice you didn’t even touch my point about how it woild be hard to search for them without the tag. Do you have an alternative way to find them? Or do you just not give a crap about that? Screw the people who may want to see an array of shortstacks, amirite?

Dyrone said:
It’s not nessecarily based on height.

Then obviously the wiki shouldn't say that it's based on height.

Also I notice you didn’t even touch my point about how it woild be hard to
search for them without the tag.

Right. Nor am I going to bother trying to explain it to you, unless you learn to focus on tag discussion, without throwing out ad hominems at whoever happens to disagree.

Genjar said:
Then obviously the wiki shouldn't say that it's based on height.

So just change the wiki. That way we have an ojective tag which has almost the same meaning as previously and which gives, possibly with some other tags, the desired results. Everybody happy! (lol who am I kidding)

Genjar said:
Then obviously the wiki shouldn't say that it's based on height.

Then change the wiki rather than suggesting the tag should be deleted?

Genjar said:
Right. Nor am I going to bother trying to explain it to you, unless you learn to focus on tag discussion, without throwing out ad hominems

What ad hominem? That part where I compared you to Amelia Bedelia? That might be the thinnest excuse to remove oneself from a discussion I have ever heard in my life...it’s almost like you don’t have a better idea than simply keeping the tag.

Can we get this alias done already? There's no reason for there to be two tags that mean the same thing.

Bucket said:
Can we get this alias done already? There's no reason for there to be two tags that mean the same thing.

+++ 1,

Regardless of whether or not shortstack/short_stack is eventually removed, it's pointless keeping two identical tags around (Besides, if one tag is aliased to the other only one tag would need to be invalidated if shortstack/short_stack ends up getting dismantled).

+1

Bumping this because it's taken a year too long to get fixed.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
So just change the wiki.

I have more than enough of work on my own to-do list, fixing this tag is a job for those who want to keep it.

Still -1 for it, since the wiki remains unfixed and the tag itself remains a mess, full of posts like these...
post #1573416 post #1571689 post #1535772 post #1565185 post #1532169 post #1531907
...that seem to have nothing to do with the definition.

Genjar said:
I have more than enough of work on my own to-do list, fixing this tag is a job for those who want to keep it.

Still -1 for it, since the wiki remains unfixed and the tag itself remains a mess, full of posts like these...

...that seem to have nothing to do with the definition.

I can try to aid cleaning up shortstack/short_stack, at least to the best of my abilities. I'm not sure if the tag(s) will be worth keeping in the end, but I'm willing to go sorting through the mess and hopefully regain some consistency.

The tag(s) may become invalidated at some point, or simply cleaned of irrelevant posts, but regardless of what happens it is still redundant to have two variants of the same tag.

For reference, shortstack currently has ~800 posts and short_stack has ~5700 posts.