According to the "breasts" wiki page, the tag should only be used with bare breasts.

However, the "big_breasts" tag implies "breasts." How do you tag obviously busty characters with covered breasts? (Or is the wiki entry off on this one?)

Djagir said:
According to the "breasts" wiki page, the tag should only be used with bare breasts.

However, the "big_breasts" tag implies "breasts." How do you tag obviously busty characters with covered breasts? (Or is the wiki entry off on this one?)

Probably just don't?
Perhaps they're balloons.

Halite said:
Probably just don't?
Perhaps they're balloons.

I honestly don't understand this logic. If someone wants to search for a picture of a clothed busty female, how are they going to find it if the underlying assumption is "if you can't see the direct body part, you must assume it doesn't exist, despite all evidence to the contrary" and so you can't actually tag that feature? Isn't the whole point of tagging to help people find the pictures they're looking for?

Look at this busty character
post #378351

You can easily tell that she has big breasts, right? We would assume that they are breasts because what else does have females have on their chest under their clothing? Wiki needs a-fixing. Breasts are breasts. If you can obviously see them, regardless of size, clothed or not, tag it with breasts

Peekaboo said:
Well, just because you see a bulge under a pair of pants, you do not tag penis, there could be anything under those pants. Only exception to this rule for me, is when I can see cleavage/part of the breasts.

Okay, so there's a "bulge" tag for that, so that people can at least search on it. People can't search on "busty," because that's aliased to big_breasts. bust is a different beastie altogether.

To me, this feels like TWYS being taken beyond its logical extreme. I'm willing to work with it if there's an alternative, but I'm not seeing one so far.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Look at this busty character
post #378351

You can easily tell that she has big breasts, right? We would assume that they are breasts because what else does have females have on their chest under their clothing? Wiki needs a-fixing. Breasts are breasts. If you can obviously see them, regardless of size, clothed or not, tag it with breasts

Would you tag this with "breasts": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BBCleavageTopView.JPG

Halite said:
Would you tag this with "breasts": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BBCleavageTopView.JPG

I would.

Butterscotch said:
I would.

Well, that's a dude.
Wearing prosthesis.

Halite said:
Would you tag this with "breasts": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BBCleavageTopView.JPG

Yes. Like I've said, if it's obviously visible, clothed or not, regardless of size, it should get the breasts tag

TheHuskyK9 said:
Yes. Like I've said, if it's obviously visible, clothed or not, regardless of size, it should get the breasts tag

Well, as I said above, in case you missed it.
Dude.
Prosthesis.

So, not breasts.

Edit: It would be like tagging this with "penis":
post #373191

Halite said:
Well, as I said above, in case you missed it.
Dude.
Prosthesis.

So, not breasts.

Edit: It would be like tagging this with "penis":
post #373191

Not entirely. The rule on here is tag what you see, not what you know. In the first image, everyone would conclude that those are breasts and they would not have known that it was prosthesis until you told us. For example, Butterscotch as evidence. The second image is easily a dildo with a strapon.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Not entirely. The rule on here is tag what you see, not what you know. In the first image, everyone would conclude that those are breasts and they would not have known that it was prosthesis until you told us. For example, Butterscotch as evidence. The second image is easily a dildo with a strapon.

But you aren't tagging what you see, you're making an assumption that they're breasts.
You see cleavage, so cleavage is appropriate, but you can't see that they're breasts for certain, so you shouldn't tag it.

Assumptions =/= twys

Halite said:
But you aren't tagging what you see, you're making an assumption that they're breasts.
You see cleavage, so cleavage is appropriate, but you can't see that they're breasts for certain, so you shouldn't tag it.

Assumptions =/= twys

So according to your logic, this
post #378351
should not get the breasts tag...yeah no.

You sometimes need to make assumptions to correctly tag something under the site's rules. For example, tag wars are always a dispute between what to tag something and even the admins make assumptions on which should be the correct tag. If we don't make assumptions, then users would tag the image I provided with balloons or air_bags, etc. which are incorrect. If we don't make assumptions, the whole tagging system would be messed up

TheHuskyK9 said:
So according to your logic, this
post #378351
should not get the breasts tag...yeah no.

You sometimes need to make assumptions to correctly tag something under the site's rules. For example, tag wars are always a dispute between what to tag something and even the admins make assumptions on which should be the correct tag. If we don't make assumptions, then user would tag the image I provided with balloons or air_bags, etc. If we don't make assumptions, the whole tagging system would be messed up

No, if you don't make assumptions you just don't tag it at all.
Tagging balloons, or airbags would also be making an assumption.

There are situations where we end up making assumptions, particularly with gender tagging, but if it is at all possible to avoid, you don't make the assumption.

And, no, that image really shouldn't have the "breasts" tag on it.
Nor should it have "big_breasts".

Halite said:
No, if you don't make assumptions you just don't tag it at all.
Tagging balloons, or airbags would also be making an assumption.

There are situations where we end up making assumptions, particularly with gender tagging, but if it is at all possible to avoid, you don't make the assumption.

And, no, that image really shouldn't have the "breasts" tag on it.
Nor should it have "big_breasts".

If you don't tag, users can't find the image they are looking for.

And, no, that image really shouldn't have the "breasts" tag on it.
Nor should it have "big_breasts".

Dude, you must be joking. The image is a solo female and if they're not breasts, then what the hell are they supposed to be? Tell me that. Not tagging an image is not helping and not efficient at all. Users want to see big breasts, that image has big breasts in it, it cannot be anything else, and you say we should remove the tag just because they aren't exposed. That's just like saying a woman with 36D sized breasts doesn't have breasts because she has a t-shirt on.

TheHuskyK9 said:
If you don't tag, users can't find the image they are looking for.
Dude, you must be joking. The image is a solo female and if they're not breasts, then what the hell are they supposed to be? Tell me that. Not tagging an image is not helping and not efficient at all. Users want to see big breasts, that image has big breasts in it, it cannot be anything else, and you say we should remove the tag just because they aren't exposed. That's just like saying a woman with 36D sized breasts doesn't have breasts because she has a t-shirt on.

No, it's saying her breasts aren't visible if you take a picture of her.

This discussion has been had before, more than once, the decision was made that "breasts" as a tag was only to be applied to clearly visible uncovered breasts.
That's why it's in the wiki(added by an admin), in bold.

Peekaboo said:
...The only reason I'd know those were prosthetic would be because you told me so, and since you don't go by out-of-site information when you're tagging...

Which is why you wouldn't tag it with "prosthetic".
I never said you should.
It doesn't mean you have to tag it breasts.

We're not in an "either/or" situation here, neither is an acceptable answer.

Halite said:
No, it's saying her breasts aren't visible if you take a picture of her.

This discussion has been had before, more than once, the decision was made that "breasts" as a tag was only to be applied to clearly visible uncovered breasts.
That's why it's in the wiki(added by an admin), in bold.

In the image I posted, those breasts are clearly visible but just in clothing. The wiki is wrong and needs to be changed because it's contradicting TWYS and it's unfair for users that want to search for clothed breasts, but they can't because they aren't being tagged correctly.

Somewhere buried in the debate here remains the question:

If it is not correct to tag breasts if the actual mammary gland itself is not visible, then how can users who want to find clothed, busty females (or other individuals with breasts—I'm not even touching the gender tagging system at this point) actually find them, using the tagging system? Whether the breasts themselves are visible, the effects certainly are, and are something you can see, and we are supposed to TWYS.

SO, assuming that the function of tags is to help users find what they want to see, how can the users be helped in this situation? We have the bulge tag for males. "curvy_chest"? Unalias busty? "chesty"?

And just to throw gasoline on the fire... :)

What about the abs and pecs tags on post #386904
?

They are covered by his shirt, after all, and they could be plastic moldings designed to give him more definition.

TheHuskyK9 said:
In the image I posted, those breasts are clearly visible but just in clothing. The wiki is wrong and needs to be changed because it's contradicting TWYS and it's unfair for users that want to search for clothed breasts, but they can't because they aren't being tagged correctly.

I see, so you're right, and the admins and users who came to the decision before you got bent out of shape about it were just wrong.
Sure, let's go with that.

Djagir said:
Somewhere buried in the debate here remains the question:

If it is not correct to tag breasts if the actual mammary gland itself is not visible, then how can users who want to find clothed, busty females (or other individuals with breasts—I'm not even touching the gender tagging system at this point) actually find them, using the tagging system? Whether the breasts themselves are visible, the effects certainly are, and are something you can see, and we are supposed to TWYS.

SO, assuming that the function of tags is to help users find what they want to see, how can the users be helped in this situation? We have the bulge tag for males. "curvy_chest"? Unalias busty? "chesty"?

It certainly could be tagged somehow, I'd say try to find the best possible fit and make a proposal to make it the tag for that situation.

Djagir said:
And just to throw gasoline on the fire... :)

What about the abs and pecs tags on post #386904
?

They are covered by his shirt, after all, and they could be plastic moldings designed to give him more definition.

That would be a whole separate discussion.

Halite said:
That would be a whole separate discussion.

Why exactly? Under your logic it shouldn't be tagged abs or pecs...

Butterscotch said:
Why exactly? Under your logic it shouldn't be tagged abs or pecs...

Because this was a decision made by the admin team specifically for the "breasts" tag.

Halite said:
I see, so you're right, and the admins and users who came to the decision before you got bent out of shape about it were just wrong.
Sure, let's go with that.

Admins and users also make mistakes due to not paying attention and not considering the consequences of their actions. Rules change bro. Can you find me the thread where they had the discussion? If not, then as you said, I am right for now.

Hey everyone. Just talked with a couple of the admins, and I think I can see why this is so debatable.

So we have the breast tag, and the big_breast seems to be for those who have bared breasts. However, you're not sure what to tag if they have breasts that are clearly sexualized, but covered.

The wiki does make mention of an image where the female's large breasts are covered, indicating that the tag is applicable.

So I would say that, under TWYS, if there is a clear reference to breasts, covered or not, then the tag is valid.

I would be more than happy to reference a few images, such as the one mentioned here: https://e621.net/forum/show/86804 would be a good use of the breasts tag.

Good call.
Hardly anyone seems to pay attention to that wiki description anyway. There's 95 pages of safe images tagged with breasts, most of which are covered...

Genjar said:
Good call.
Hardly anyone seems to pay attention to that wiki description anyway. There's 95 pages of safe images tagged with breasts, most of which are covered...

Agreed

I'm in agreement with DarkAngel and HuskyK9 and such. I think that the obvious implication of breasts, clothed or otherwise, should be tagged with breasts.

Halite said:
Probably just don't?
Perhaps they're balloons.

Just in response to this, though its pretty late, we operate under TWYS. So, if it LOOKS like breasts underneath clothing then we should tag it as breasts, even if it's actually balloons, melons, goo, squids, or gravel. I SEE what looks like breasts, with no indication otherwise, therefore I'll tag what I see.

What if every penis was just a carefully painted and sculpted zucchini?

Seven_Twenty said:
What if every penis was just a carefully painted and sculpted zucchini?

That would be external information, not everyone would know that :P

When I am tagging if the character is obviously female and breasts, clothed or not, are clearly present I tag them as such.

I don't see how being covered or not would change your ability to tag their size, since big_breasts is about tagging which size the breasts are. Whether or not they are covered is a separate trait, and it should have a separate tag. Additionally it's already achieved by searching breasts topless . If that's not enough, we could create a tag specifically for bare_breasts so that separating them out of the rest of tagged breasts would be even easier.

But we don't tag obesity only if they're nude just in case it's a fatsuit. And we don't tag wide_hips only when they're nude just in case their clothes contain strategic padding. We don't tag muscles only if they're nude just in case it's a rubber insert. And we don't tag people as amputees if they're arm goes out of view just in case it might be shorter than normal. We don't tag "just in case". Just in case hinges on 'what we know for sure'.

We TWYS, not TWYK so what we know for sure doesn't matter. We don't know for sure they aren't balloons, but if balloons can convincingly look like breasts, then we should tag what they look like: breasts. And if they're revealed later in a multi-page comic to be balloons or prosthetics, or somehow breasts imposters, then that doesn't change the fact they looked like breasts in that first picture. We don't tag what we know (if they were revealed later to be something non-breast), we just tag what they look like.

So what are we tagging if we don't know for sure it's a real breast? Technically speaking, breasts is a tag for twin globular mounds found on the chest. They come in various sizes and on characters of various genders. They're recognizable based on shape and location, which doesn't change when they're bare vs clothed. They're still on the chest, still globular, and still recognizable as breasts based on those characteristics even through clothing. It doesn't matter if they're real or fake, it doesn't matter if they could be something else in disguise. It only matters if they resemble breasts and can reasonably be described as breasts. And we certainly shouldn't tag nothing on breast-like, breast-shaped, clearly visible lumps in the location breasts are found, just because we don't know if they contain real breasts or not. Doing so would kill people's ability to search for what they can see in an image.

Also, the rules for breasts and [size]_breasts should be the same. Having breasts apply to all breasts clothed and unclothed but then have the size of the breast only be taggable if the breast is bare makes no logical sense. There's nothing intuitive in thinking that a tag talking about the size of the breast is going to have anything to do with whether it was a bare or clothed breast. The name of the tag should be directly related to what the tag is used for, no more/no less. Neither of them indicate anything about clothed or unclothed status, so the tagging rules for both should apply regardless of clothed of unclothed status. If we need a tag for that, it should be a separate tag from these two.

furrypickle said:
<long post>

By that logic we should tag this:
post #383781
With penis, and balls.

This:
post #380999
With pussy.

And probably this:
post #387371
with fetus, and young.

After all, we may not see them, but they're all something we could assume from what is visible in the images.

Or we could carry on tagging what is actually visible in the images, and not make assumptions and break the tagging system.

The head admin showed up and made a ruling about the "breasts" tag, so I'm not going to argue that further.
I don't agree that it fits in TWYS that way, but I look at it as an exception.
I can't leave the logic being presented here go un-disputed though, if it is applied further then it really can end up ruining the whole TWYS system.

Why do people try to make things so difficult?

I know, I'm late to the party, but IMO Halite is not right, and AFAIK there was no consensus about how breast tag should be used. Ippiki ookami for tagging only when they are fully exposed, with nipples, etc. Others not that much.

Moreover there are already tags like multi_breast that implies breast, and were modified by an admin (Okay, now ex-admin, but then it was admin's modification) who added picture with covered breasts as an example.

And IMO not tagging something that looks like breasts, that is placed where normally breasts are because it could be baloon is like not tagging disembodied_penis with male, because it always could be herm, or tentacle.

Halite said:
By that logic we should tag this:
post #383781
With penis, and balls

Nope, we would tag it with bulge because all we see is his bulge

Halite said:
This:
post #380999
With pussy.

Nope, we would tag it with camel_toe because we see that she's wearing clothes and not nude

And probably this:
post #387371
with fetus, and young.

Nope, we would tag it with pregnant since we can't see the actual fetus or young.

Halite said:
After all, we may not see them, but they're all something we could assume from what is visible in the images.

Or we could carry on tagging what is actually visible in the images, and not make assumptions and break the tagging system.

The head admin showed up and made a ruling about the "breasts" tag, so I'm not going to argue that further.
I don't agree that it fits in TWYS that way, but I look at it as an exception.
I can't leave the logic being presented here go un-disputed though, if it is applied further then it really can end up ruining the whole TWYS system.

But I thought you said assumptions =/= TWYS. We tag what's currently present and visible in a image, not logic. Because if we use logic, that's tagging what you know, and not what you see[/]. That will most certainly ruin TWYS. You have it backwards dude.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I know, I'm late to the party, but IMO Halite is not right, and AFAIK there was no consensus about how breast tag should be used. Ippiki ookami for tagging only when they are fully exposed, with nipples, etc. Others not that much.

Moreover there are already tags like multi_breast that implies breast, and were modified by an admin (Okay, now ex-admin, but then it was admin's modification) who added picture with covered breasts as an example.

And IMO not tagging something that looks like breasts, that is placed where normally breasts are because it could be baloon is like not tagging disembodied_penis with male, because it always could be herm, or tentacle.

Actually, there was a USER concensus (As in, it was put to vote in the forums, debated, then decided as a general whole though not unanimously) about how to use the various breast tags, and it actually ended up with me leaving for awhile because the admins decided to have the breast tags invert their associations such that the sizes did not imply their general size, but tiered down the size chart, so hyper_breasts implied huge_breasts implied big_breasts implied breasts... *shakes head* It's still in effect, too, for whatever reason. They have wiki definitions, they should be used properly. :< https://e621.net/forum/show/20968 is the forum thread from close to three years back now?

(From the E6 Wiki, btw; Hyper: Breasts that have been hyper-endowed, and are unrealistically large, more than can be waved away with artistic licence. Huge: Breasts that are unusually large. Usually with notable sag and often clearly visible even when viewed from behind. Equal to or exceeds the bearer's head in size. Big: Breasts that are above average in size, but no bigger than the female's head. Then, on the actual Breasts wiki page itself; Flat chest: Female characters who have no breast development whatsoever, either because they are not old enough for breast development to have begun, or because their species does not grow breasts (eg. anatomically correct reptiles). Small breasts: Less-than-average sized breasts. Big breasts: Uncommonly large breasts. Huge breasts: Unrealistic but possible; breasts equal to or larger than the size of the character's head. Hyper breasts: Part of the hyper fetish. Breasts larger than could ever be naturally possible for the character's size.)

Can we please get that resolved, while we're at it? They shouldn't imply breasts that are outside their definitions. ( https://e621.net/post/show/95748 for example are definitely hyper. Not just huge, not just big, though they are definitely breasts.)

Anyways, what was collectively decided back then was that the sizes were for approximate sizes of breast, regardless of clothing status, based on relative size to the owner, and that breasts are tagged regardless of clothing status because they are a prominant feature that would be searched- they are so sexualized, they get tagged because it is more referencing the fetishistic properties that that body part pair has. If you do a search for ~female ~hermaphrodite -breasts, you get 1381 pages, because there are images where there are no breasts but other obvious tells for female or herm without breasts (1371 with just female -breasts, fyi). Fetishism of breasts is the primary reason why the tag exists- People want to see boobs, clothed or not- but that doesn't mean you don't tag breasts just because they're clothed.

It's like how you don't tag eyeless unless you can see there aren't any eyes, because it is assumed that a normal (bipedal) creature has two legs, two arms, a torso, a head, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and so on- Or whatever is normal for however many legs they stand on normally- just having hair covering their eyes doesn't make them eyeless (though it would qualify for a hair_over_eyes tag because it's modifying the basic assumption of "normalcy", which is that hair isn't covering the eyes completely, the other half of why most tags exist).

TheHuskyK9 said:
Nope, we would tag it with bulge because all we see is his bulge

Wiki definition of bulge needs to be updated to include sheath and not specify an erect or partially erect member for that to be correct, actually.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Nope, we would tag it with bulge because all we see is his bulge

That's my point. You can no more see his penis and balls than you can see the breasts in the previous image used as an example:
post #378351

Nope, we would tag it with camel_toe because we see that she's wearing clothes and not nude

Again, my point.

Nope, we would tag it with pregnant since we can't see the actual fetus or young.

See above.

But I thought you said assumptions =/= TWYS. We tag what's currently present and visible in a image, not logic. Because if we use logic, that's tagging what you know, and not what you see[/]. That will most certainly ruin TWYS. You have it backwards dude.

Hi there.
Read my actual statement again.
I'm not saying to use assumptions, I am saying that if we use the logic that furrypickle was using to excuse the breast tagging, then it breaks the system.
So again, you're arguing my point in saying that using logic to decide what to tag breaks TWYS.

So, I guess thanks for agreeing with me?

Halite said:
That's my point. You can no more see his penis and balls than you can see the breasts in the previous image used as an example:
post #378351

Dude, no. Ok, I will make this really simple for you. The image is a solo female, she has two big lumps on her chest, and we use Tag What You See. Are you still with me? Your logic says not to tag breasts because in your opinion, you don't know what those big lumps are. TWYS logic says that it's a female with big breasts. How do we know that they are breasts? There's no evidence going against it, they are obviously sexualized for a viewer's pleasure, and female anatomy says those things on their chest are called breasts. Still with me? She's covering her breasts with clothing. Even with clothing, her breasts are still big, yes? With that, we can conclude that they are indeed breasts, and we tag it as so.

The bulge tag is difficult. IMO, if a bulge is very defined, then I might tag penis and balls. Otherwise, if it's just a little hump near the crotch, all it gets is the bulge tag.

TheHuskyK9 said:
...
The bulge tag is difficult. IMO, if a bulge is very defined, then I might tag penis and balls. Otherwise, if it's just a little hump near the crotch, all it gets is the bulge tag.

Look at my bulge example, you can clearly see the shape of a pair of balls and a flaccid penis.
Would you consider it appropriate to tag that with penis and balls?

Halite said:
Look at my bulge example, you can clearly see the shape of a pair of balls and a flaccid penis.
Would you consider it appropriate to tag that with penis and balls?

Balls, yes. Penis, no. Not because we don't know what's causing it, but because the shape is visibly different between clothed and unclothed. It's better described as a bulge in that picture because the clothing has compressed and changed the overall shape of that character's penis.

But that's a red herring because the same thing doesn't occur to breasts. Whether or not a breast is in a bra, in a corset, in a shirt, in a dress, covered with a sheet or hanging out on display - the shape is the same. They're globular, and on the chest. Being clothed doesn't change their shape; being nude doesn't change their shape. A completely different piece of anatomy (a penis) with completely different characteristics (erect vs flaccid) is affected differently by clothing, so we tag it differently. But again, that's based on shape being different. If breasts don't change shape when clothed, then why should they be tagged as if they are something different?

furrypickle said:
...Whether or not a breast is in a bra, in a corset, in a shirt, in a dress, covered with a sheet or hanging out on display - the shape is the same...

You don't know much about breasts...

Halite said:
You don't know much about breasts...

I guess what he meant was "similar", after all everybody knows how breasts look like :/ (or they should if they are browsing here lol)

Wasn't this whole dramafest dealt with already by the admins?

Patch said:
Wasn't this whole dramafest dealt with already by the admins?

It's exactly what I've been thinking since this got a #2 page.

Butterscotch said:
It's exactly what I've been thinking since this got a #2 page.

Same here.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Same here.

Wave your magic wand and solve this! Woo!

Patch said:
Wasn't this whole dramafest dealt with already by the admins?

Sure was, until they started talking about applying the same logic to more tags.
Then it became an issue again -.-

Halite said:
Sure was, until they started talking about applying the same logic to more tags.
Then it became an issue again -.-

By 'they', you mean 'you'.

Seriously, start a new thread if you want to discuss bulges and whatnot. Doesn't make a lot of sense to post in a boob thread if you're not talking about boobs!

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
By 'they', you mean 'you'.

Seriously, start a new thread if you want to discuss bulges and whatnot. Doesn't make a lot of sense to post in a boob thread if you're not talking about boobs!

*pokes you towards my post, sandwiched between Halite's and others'*

123easy said:
*pokes you towards my post, sandwiched between Halite's and others'*

About the size of breasts? It's a valid point. Personally, I wouldn't want too many breast type tags out there, and I think having a distinction is important, so let's start this anew.

What would you like to propose as the new breast tagging system in relation to size?

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
By 'they', you mean 'you'.

Seriously, start a new thread if you want to discuss bulges and whatnot. Doesn't make a lot of sense to post in a boob thread if you're not talking about boobs!

Again, I wasn't arguing for tagging more things this way.
I was attempting to dispute the logic behind furrypickle's post because based on it people might argue for further tagging on non-visible body parts.
By providing examples that would be mistagged if you were to apply his logic, I had hoped to show that it wasn't a good idea.
Mostly so that in the future people don't try to point back to this thread as an excuse for bad tagging.

As I said, I'm not trying to dispute your earlier ruling, I simply hope that people would view it as a slight exception, and not a reason to start tagging things that aren't actually visible in the images.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to post in a boob thread

This is, probably, the most boring boob thread in the whole Internet.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
This is, probably, the most boring boob thread in the whole Internet.

Indeed, let's make it more interesting.
post #387925 post #387825 post #383299 post #381546

TheHuskyK9 said:
Indeed, let's make it more interesting.
post #387925

Yes =^_^=

TheHuskyK9 said:
Indeed, let's make it more interesting.
post #387825

I freaking loled XD.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
What would you like to propose as the new breast tagging system in relation to size?

Personally I'd bring back the average_breasts tag, because it makes for better searching. Currently you have to search "breasts -big_breasts -huge_breasts -hyper_breasts -small_breasts " and then hope that what shows up is only the average sized breasts, and not just a bunch of untagged breasts of every size. I think sometimes tags are only thought of as browsing, but their primary use is for searching. Omitting the average_breasts tag sounded good in theory , but now takes 5 search tags to approximate and still not achieve the same results. And that leaves basic members with only one search slot left to find what they were searching for. I just don't think it was a functional idea.

Then I'd remove the implication mess which implicates hyper_breasts ---> huge_breasts ---> big_breasts ---> breasts which creates too many pictures with all four tags and rendering the whole system worse than useless. 123easy mentioned it too. It's just a mess as long as that's there.

Then I'd have the community come to a consensus using a combination of pictures and proportional references on what each of those means. (For example, the size of the breasts in relation to the owner's own head or hands, or a common object that comes in a standard size, like regulation sports balls. I wouldn't go with fruit though because apples and grapefruits in real life come in a variety of sizes. Just something standard and comparable would work.)

In addition to standardising the definitions, also decide on three example reference pictures for each size to link to on the wiki. Then use those size reference pictures on the wikis so that people would have a visual average on what it means, as well as the textual explanation. This would make all of them a lot more like the wiki for small_breasts currently is, only with a more detailed text-based explanation to go with it. Three pictures for each because that creates an average, and it doesn't completely break things if one gets deleted.

After the standards are agreed on, it'd be a huge tag cleanup project to get the whole breasts tag mess to align with the new standards for it. It's a mess currently even if we leave it and eventually it's going to need straightened out. It's just a question of if that happens now or later.

That's the overall strategy I'd suggest. As for specifics, I think this thread might have some ideas. It was a vibrant discussion from several years ago that seems to cover every angle on the subject. For those who want a cliffsnotes, SnowWolf proposed this:

I think the use of fists and heads as reference points is far better than what we have now. Actually, we could just use this, add a few reference/example pictures linked for each size, fix the implications mess between big/huge/hyper, and then launch straight into the tag cleanup project. We're not exactly working from scratch on this if we don't want to be. That would be one approach. I think most people are just sick of it being a giant mess and just want the whole problem to go away. But getting a working system going is the only way to get that in the long term.

furrypickle said:
Personally I'd bring back the average_breasts tag, because it makes for better searching. Currently you have to search "breasts -big_breasts -huge_breasts -hyper_breasts -small_breasts "

Actually you only need breasts -big_breasts -small_breasts because of the implications. There's really no good reason to deimplicate the breast tags as they serve a useful function by allowing a user to get all the big breast when searching for big_breasts instead of just some of them.

furrypickle said:
Personally I'd bring back the average_breasts tag, because it makes for better searching. Currently you have to search "breasts -big_breasts -huge_breasts -hyper_breasts -small_breasts " and then hope that what shows up is only the average sized breasts, and not just a bunch of untagged breasts of every size. I think sometimes tags are only thought of as browsing, but their primary use is for searching. Omitting the average_breasts tag sounded good in theory , but now takes 5 search tags to approximate and still not achieve the same results. And that leaves basic members with only one search slot left to find what they were searching for. I just don't think it was a functional idea.

Then I'd remove the implication mess which implicates hyper_breasts ---> huge_breasts ---> big_breasts ---> breasts which creates too many pictures with all four tags and rendering the whole system worse than useless. 123easy mentioned it too. It's just a mess as long as that's there.

Then I'd have the community come to a consensus using a combination of pictures and proportional references on what each of those means. (For example, the size of the breasts in relation to the owner's own head or hands, or a common object that comes in a standard size, like regulation sports balls. I wouldn't go with fruit though because apples and grapefruits in real life come in a variety of sizes. Just something standard and comparable would work.)

In addition to standardising the definitions, also decide on three example reference pictures for each size to link to on the wiki. Then use those size reference pictures on the wikis so that people would have a visual average on what it means, as well as the textual explanation. This would make all of them a lot more like the wiki for small_breasts currently is, only with a more detailed text-based explanation to go with it. Three pictures for each because that creates an average, and it doesn't completely break things if one gets deleted.

After the standards are agreed on, it'd be a huge tag cleanup project to get the whole breasts tag mess to align with the new standards for it. It's a mess currently even if we leave it and eventually it's going to need straightened out. It's just a question of if that happens now or later.

That's the overall strategy I'd suggest. As for specifics, I think this thread might have some ideas. It was a vibrant discussion from several years ago that seems to cover every angle on the subject. For those who want a cliffsnotes, SnowWolf proposed this:

• small breasts - non-existent to small breasts. Characters tagged with this may be said to have a flat chest, and may be naturally under-endowed, or perhaps young and still developing. generally, these breasts are small a palmful, ranging up to, hm.. fist sized?
• average_breasts - Breasts that are not unusually sized. They are not too big, and not too small, averaging at about the size--give or take, of the average handful, or a curled fist.
• big_breasts - above average in size, larger then the character's fist, but no bigger than the breast-bearers head.
• huge_breasts - unusually large, yet still possibly natural looking. As big bearer's head in size, or even larger, to about one head and a half of size, though this is a fuzzy measurement.
• hyper_breasts - unrealistically large breasts, larger then one and a half heads, roughly. There is no 'upper end' to hyper breasts. They may be larger then the character or even larger."

I think the use of fists and heads as reference points is far better than what we have now. Actually, we could just use this, add a few reference/example pictures linked for each size, fix the implications mess between big/huge/hyper, and then launch straight into the tag cleanup project. We're not exactly working from scratch on this if we don't want to be. That would be one approach. I think most people are just sick of it being a giant mess and just want the whole problem to go away. But getting a working system going is the only way to get that in the long term.

Breasts as the overall meta-tag for all breasts of any size (and potentially shape?), with small_, average_, big_, huge_, hyper_ for individual sizes- So if you just wanna see tits, just search breasts, but if you want to see a specific size of tit, you can? For the record, that was a formal codification of what we were working on description-wise, so I'm cool with the list you gave (though I still think most of the "Huge" should be hyper... but that's just my opinion, based on if they were real, so). I'd also argue that clothed or not, they should get the appropriate tag, because if you don't care if they're clothed, you don't refine your search. If you want them clothed, you note it via the clothed tag. if you want 'em nude, nude tag. Or topless, if you just want free bouncing sweater puppies.

DrHorse said:
Actually you only need breasts -big_breasts -small_breasts because of the implications. There's really no good reason to deimplicate the breast tags as they serve a useful function by allowing a user to get all the big breast when searching for big_breasts instead of just some of them.

Then you want not just big breasts, but huge breasts and hyper breasts- apply your search terms appropriately then, is what I say to you. Your addition of more breast sizes should be optional, not forced. If I want just average breasts but not any other size of breasts (and as I noted they already have defined sizes in the wiki, even if they aren't strictly standardized) then I have to search breasts -big_breasts -small_breasts and hope I get only breasts that don't fit another size catagory but average and big, not just untagged other references. Big_breasts might as well just be huge_breasts might as well be hyper_breasts with the current format- There's so few images difference between them because of the implication mess that Riversyde decided to throw up completely contrary to the discussion that was occuring >.< And it's STILL taking three slots to get what should only take one.

Genjar said:
Personally, I only like to see boobs on mammals.

So whatever you decide, I'd prefer it if there were some way to search for breastless (covered or not) female avians and reptiles.

Pretty simple. "female ~avian ~reptile -breast" with two more slots for other things, such as orientation or multiple of people tags or other modifiers (I like bottomless, myself).

123easy said:
Pretty simple. "female ~avian ~reptile -breast" with two more slots for other things, such as orientation or multiple of people tags or other modifiers (I like bottomless, myself).

Almost, but that misses some images. Such as:
post #239681

Non-mammal_breasts tag exists, but it's currently underused. I've been wary about adding it to images, since I dunno if it's truly needed and I don't want to make the tag clutter worse... Personally, I've found it useful though.

123easy said:
Then you want not just big breasts, but huge breasts and hyper breasts- apply your search terms appropriately then, is what I say to you. Your addition of more breast sizes should be optional, not forced. Big_breasts might as well just be huge_breasts might as well be hyper_breasts with the current format- There's so few images difference between them because of the implication mess that Riversyde decided to throw up completely contrary to the discussion that was occuring >.< And it's STILL taking three slots to get what should only take one.

You said it yourself:

123easy said:
Can we please get that resolved, while we're at it? They shouldn't imply breasts that are outside their definitions. ( https://e621.net/post/show/95748 for example are definitely hyper. Not just huge, not just big, though they are definitely breasts.)

Hyper_breasts are not just huge_breasts, and they're not just big_breasts. But they are big breasts and they are huge breasts, so nothing's being forced: you get exactly what you searched for. It's much more reasonable to expect a user to adjust their search after seeing an image tagged with hyper_breasts than it is to expect a user to know (and search for) two extra, obscure tags which mean "large mammaries."