I've noticed this isn't the case, but I think the "Short Stack" tag should automatically apply the "Short" tag, in much the same way the "Big Penis" tag applies the "penis" tag without the tagger having to type it in manually. Is there any reason that this isn't so? Since short stacks must be short to be short stacks.

Like small which is already disambiguated, I think short is too broad of a tag and will likely also be disambiguated later, unlike penis which only has one meaning besides having multiple types.

I mean, short could be a misspelling of shorts, a smaller character in a group post (smaller_<gender/form>), or a very specific body part like short_hair or short_tail.

Short stacks are more based on proportions than literal height

applephrans said:
Short stacks are more based on proportions than literal height

If they're not short aren't they just regular stacks? "Stacked" was a term before short stack became a thing.

monsterbomb10010 said:
Like small which is already disambiguated, I think short is too broad of a tag and will likely also be disambiguated later, unlike penis which only has one meaning besides having multiple types.

I mean, short could be a misspelling of shorts, a smaller character in a group post (smaller_<gender/form>), or a very specific body part like short_hair or short_tail.

It could be a disambiguation, but sometimes I literally want to find a character who is short. As in an anthropomorphic character who is noticeably below the average height for their species. "Short" is the only tag, at present, that covers that and it's woefully underpopulated.

Really my ulterior motive here is to get the Short tag more populated so that people use it more and it's easier to find what I'm looking for.

short_stack macro would suggest shortstacks are not necessarily short.