The tag alias #58040 male_short_stack -> teapot_(body_type) has been rejected.

Reason: I've seen male characters of this body type called "male short stack" in the titles of /trash/ threads. It is culturally relevant.
Edit: I also feel like male_short_stack is easier to remember and is also intuitive to begin with; not everybody is going to know about the term "teapot" when searching for short, curvy male characters.

EDIT: The tag alias male_short_stack -> teapot_(body_type) (forum #339744) has been rejected by @slyroon.

By the reasons you've given, this should be the other way around. male_short_stack -> teapot_(body_type) would get rid of male_short_stack, replacing it with teapot_(body_type).

sentogiga said:
The tag alias #58040 male_short_stack -> teapot_(body_type) has been rejected.

Reason: I've seen male characters of this body type called "male short stack" in the titles of /trash/ threads. It is culturally relevant.
Edit: I also feel like male_short_stack is easier to remember and is also intuitive to begin with; not everybody is going to know about the term "teapot" when searching for short, curvy male characters.

deleuzian_cattery said:
By the reasons you've given, this should be the other way around. male_short_stack -> teapot_(body_type) would get rid of male_short_stack, replacing it with teapot_(body_type).

The male_shortstack tag is neither defined nor has it been used, "teapot" is well enough understood that it's been tagged regularly and consistently (applied to valid posts) by dozens of users, whether people on a 4chan board use "male shortstack" isn't really relevant if it's not being used here or elsewhere online, "teapot" in reference to "male shortstacks" is used on Twitter, FurAffinity, Rule34, Reddit, and Itaku.

Tangentially, I think teapot_(body_type) should be updated and aliased to teapot_figure, it's less wordy and in line with pear-shaped figure or hourglass figure.

hungrymaple said:
The male_shortstack tag is neither defined nor has it been used, "teapot" is well enough understood that it's been tagged regularly and consistently (applied to valid posts) by dozens of users, whether people on a 4chan board use "male shortstack" isn't really relevant if it's not being used here or elsewhere online, "teapot" in reference to "male shortstacks" is used on Twitter, FurAffinity, Rule34, Reddit, and Itaku.

I don't particularly care; I was just pointing out that the alias was going to do the opposite of what sentogiga seemed to intend.

Tangentially, I think teapot_(body_type) should be updated and aliased to teapot_figure, it's less wordy and in line with pear-shaped figure or hourglass figure.

I would prefer teapot_figure over teapot_(body_type), as much as I enjoy parentheses.

Is there any particular reason why short_stack needs to be considered to be a gendered term?

wat8548 said:
Is there any particular reason why short_stack needs to be considered to be a gendered term?

If I understand it correctly, the "stack" part of short stack is intended to mean stacked - "has big breasts", which most short stacks have, and that was the original meaning of the term. Although, "short stack" has generally come to mean any female character with squat curvy proportions, even if they don't have big breasts (see Midna or any Yordle, usually considered "short stacks" even when not shown with large breasts).

Lots of 😐’s, but I don’t see any real reason for that. Sure, male_short_stack may not be in use, but if the alias helps someone find or recall the tag more easily, and the alias doesn’t conflict with any other potential uses, I don’t see what the problem is.

scaliespe said:
Lots of 😐’s, but I don’t see any real reason for that. Sure, male_short_stack may not be in use, but if the alias helps someone find or recall the tag more easily, and the alias doesn’t conflict with any other potential uses, I don’t see what the problem is.

Honestly I'd rather just see shortstack update to shortstack_(body_type) (Avoid any potential confusion over a stack of pancakes) and be used for all genders.

scaliespe said:
Lots of 😐’s, but I don’t see any real reason for that. Sure, male_short_stack may not be in use, but if the alias helps someone find or recall the tag more easily, and the alias doesn’t conflict with any other potential uses, I don’t see what the problem is.

My 👎 is based on the assumption that the OP actually intended to do the reverse, if they don't intend to do that, aliasing male_short_stack to teapot is a good idea, but I think teapot_(body_type) should be changed over to teapot_figure first, because it falls in line with other figure tags (there are no other tags in use formatted as *_(body_type)), and it's less cumbersome.

furrin_gok said:
Honestly I'd rather just see shortstack update to shortstack_(body_type) (Avoid any potential confusion over a stack of pancakes)

Is there really any need for a disambiguation? It wouldn't be that useful, unless we're expecting a number of users with posts featuring pancakes, who specifically want to reference the height of the stack in their tags, and are unaware of the very common slang term (and ignore the 25 thousand other posts that aren't pancake related). Even Google gives the urban dictionary definition of "short stack" the top search result, followed by more results about shortstacks, a band, a font, a company, and a poker term all called "Short Stack" - rather than a small number of pancakes on a plate. Changing short stack would be like changing breasts to breasts_(anatomy) on the off chance someone out there is going to tag a plate of cooked chicken breast as "breasts".

and be used for all genders.

Hard disagree, making the tag unisex causes a lot of inconvenience that doesn't need to exist. The sex ratio between "male shortstacks" and "female shortstacks" overwhelmingly skews to female characters, it would be very difficult to search for an image that features a "male shortstack" unless you're looking for solo (male short_stack solo)* or gay content (male/male short_stack -female) (and a lot of those characters aren't actually short stacked at all, just short and/or small but hung)

^{*needs a lot of clean-up... just a cursory browse of the first page has multiple non-solo, non-male and non-shortstack posts}

The serious issues with the short stack tag being made unisex really start when you apply it to male/female and male/gynomorph posts...

If you want posts featuring a male and female of the same proportions, you need something like male/female short_stack -larger_male -smaller_female -faceless_male -disembodied_penis -first_person_view, and even with all of those caveats, the majority of the posts do not feature shortstacked male characters (however, this is at least in part because most "shortstack males" are tagged as teapots.)

Searching for male/female size difference with a "shortstack male" still needs several qualifiers male/female short_stack smaller_male -micro -macro, and still delivers mostly irrelevant content, usually with male characters who are smaller... than a female shortstack character, and are not curvy or exaggerated in a "shortstack way" themselves, or are merely short and conflated with "short stack".

Keeping teapot as a separate tag from shortstack is for the best.

hungrymaple said:
My 👎 is based on the assumption that the OP actually intended to do the reverse, if they don't intend to do that, aliasing male_short_stack to teapot is a good idea, but I think teapot_(body_type) should be changed over to teapot_figure first, because it falls in line with other figure tags (there are no other tags in use formatted as *_(body_type)), and it's less cumbersome.

That’s fair. If there’s a BUR to change the name to remove the suffix, I’ll support that. As it stands, however, under the presumption that the name isn’t going to be changed, I’d support the current alias request regardless of the requester’s intent.

The tag alias male_short_stack -> teapot_(body_type) (forum #339744) has been rejected by @slyroon.