Reason: Wiki description for both tags illustrates similarities between the two tags to the point they are basically the same thing- Any instance of huge breasts (breasts bigger than one's head) are effectively hyper. Both wiki pages for Hyper (there is no specific hyper_breasts page) and for breasts state that huge_breasts are hyper; the line from Breasts states specifically; "<b>Huge breasts</b>: G and up sized breasts; used for the completely unrealistic mammaries seen in the hyper fetish." while Hyper states; "Short for hyper-endowed, as in, the character's sexual anatomy (genitals and/or breasts) are unrealistically large, more than can be waved away with artistic licence. Hyper generally features penises and breasts which, in a more realistic setting, would cause death from blood loss or a broken spine, respectively." Both also link to many of the same images as examples.

Alternatively, swap the alias around so hyper_breasts is aliased to huge_breasts; Either way, only one of the two tags need remain.

the problem with breasts:

breasts - 39493 posts
big_breasts - 5743
huge_breasts - 1332
hyper_breasts - 600
small_breasts - 520
oversized_breasts - 22
sagging_breasts - 1
heavy_breasts - 1
tiny_breasts - 1
perky_breasts - 2
bouncing_breasts - 21
droopy_breasts - 22
natural_breasts - 11

and those are the ones that stand out on a quick skim over of the *breasts tags (not *breast, not *breasts*, not *boob* or any other variations)

then there's the problem of scale.
That character on the screen? you can't actually ask them what their bra size is.

whats' the difference between flat_chest (658 BTW) and small_breasts? what's the differnece between big, huge and hyper? oversized?

are all 31000 of the remaining breast pictures out there "normal" that don't have a size modifier? unlikely.

Here would be my thought...

flat chest - pretty straight forward
small breasts - small breasts... probably measured as slight curves -- post #121168 for example (post #120459 on the other hand, is NOT.)
breasts - for images of unremarkable and average boobsize. that is of course assuming we furries understand what 'average' means.
large breasts - above average boobs
hyper_breasts - ridiculously large. Unrealistically huge. The problem with this is that boobies CAN get quite big in real life... but that a great many furry/anime drawings illustrate utterly unrealistic GRAVITY... making things like post #129097 post #139497 post #131492 look unrealistic, even if the actual size is something reasonably attainable by browsing through the right websites.

but I don't really think huge and hyper need to be lumped together--not automatically. It'd probably be better aliasing huge_breasts to large_breasts, AFTER going through and making sure that none of the huge_breast images 'deserve' being tagged hyper instead.

Why does this thread feel familiar ?
Oh yes ! forum #4879

Also: forum #13850 technically.

BUT, neither of those posts resulting in any agreement on what should be done, how best to make the system 'fool proof' while maintaining clearly established lines of definition so that there isn't as much 'seepage'...

nor did anyone volunteer to go through, retag things according to consensus, so that things could be aliased,

SOOO.. there's no harm in rehashing it to see something better comes floating to the surface.

Geez you guys, 5 tags for breast size should be enough...

How about implicating hyper_breasts -> huge_breasts?

SnowWolf said:
whats' the difference between flat_chest (658 BTW) and small_breasts?

The difference is you can see there are breasts there.
flat_chest should be used when there is no boobage whatsoever. On females, obviously.

what's the differnece between big, huge and hyper? oversized?

There is plenty of difference between these breast sizes. Look through the posts associated with them and you should understand it. oversized_breasts is just another tag that needs to be aliased.

Here would be my thought...

flat chest - pretty straight forward
small breasts - small breasts... probably measured as slight curves -- post #121168 for example (post #120459 on the other hand, is NOT.)
breasts - for images of unremarkable and average boobsize. that is of course assuming we furries understand what 'average' means.
large breasts - above average boobs
hyper_breasts - ridiculously large. Unrealistically huge. The problem with this is that boobies CAN get quite big in real life... but that a great many furry/anime drawings illustrate utterly unrealistic GRAVITY... making things like post #129097 post #139497 post #131492 look unrealistic, even if the actual size is something reasonably attainable by browsing through the right websites.

but I don't really think huge and hyper need to be lumped together--not automatically. It'd probably be better aliasing huge_breasts to large_breasts, AFTER going through and making sure that none of the huge_breast images 'deserve' being tagged hyper instead.

But there is so much leeway between large and hyper breasts! For some, large could have the same meaning as big_breasts, for others it could mean huge_breasts. Because this tag set is entirely based on the tag editor's opinion of what is small/big/huge/hyper breasts, it's doubtful this problem will ever be eradicated. The tagging system for breast size is fine how it is now in my view, but unless you somehow change everyone who uses this site's opinion of what is or is not large_breasts...

(btw, most of my questions were rhetorical... ^^;; ) See, that's the exact problem: it's all down to the editor, so there's no easy way to standardize. which is why my suggestion would be to narrow it down into large enough catagories where it's not really confusing what you'd find.

For example, right now? there are *10* pages of posts tagged with both huge_breasts and big_breasts. 1.5 of big+hyper, 1 page of huge+hyper and 3 pictures (of solo females) that have all three!

it seems like.. hmm.. it seems like some people are using 'big' or 'huge' as a catch all term.. like above_average_breast_size (that's NOT a suggestion) and using the others to be more specific.. kind of like how chubby, obese etc are all aliased to fat.

I dunno. I still think we should go for a 'less tags' approach, but flat, small, 'breasts', big, huge, hyper would work, I supose. It's more about neatness for me, but I'm not going through 40K breast pictures to make sure they're all boob'd appropriatly.

technically, flat and small could probably be one...

post #134621 post #124392 post #121747 are all 'flat' but should be small... IMO

while post #118194 and others are small but should be flat.

then again... I guess the real problem is hat some peopel go "oh, flat chested" and think of a girl with A-or-B cups... while others go "oh, flat chested, NO BREASTS."

I dunno. ;_; I wish we could download a collective idea into everyone's head and get everyone tagging on roughly the same page. :)

Large breasts could be defined as breasts roughly the size of the character's head. Anything larger would then be considered simply huge, as the definition on the wiki page already indicates that hyper is g-cup and up, and a quick check of the g-cup size (just a quick safesearch off Googling imagesearch) shows that g-cups are larger than the woman's head. Since this is the case, using the wiki's current format any breasts sized larger than the head of the subject would qualify as huge.

For purposes of consolidation and clarification, flat_chest can get absorbed into small_breasts because regardless of size, the breasts are still there, just not as pronounced; We don't exactly tag males for flat_chest, only females (And even then a quick glance at the tag shows a number of images where there are small, budding breasts).

My proposed tags;

-small_breasts: from flat chests to small breasts that are small bumps on the chest. Just because they aren't visible doesn't mean they aren't there.

-breasts: Visible, obvious breasts. they look like, in perspective, to be the size an average hand could cup comfortably without overflow.

-large_breasts: Anything that is larger than just breasts, but smaller than huge_breasts.

-huge_breasts: Any breast size where the breast is larger than the head.

Or, to cup size it:

-small_breasts: AAA through B.

-breasts: C through D.

-large_breasts: D through F.

-huge_breasts: G and up.

This then would allow for the removal of the tag hyper_breasts, and if it would be agreed that all breasts larger than the female's head, in perspective, qualify still under the wiki's notation of hyper, then huge_breasts can imply hyper. This slims down heavily the number of tags, while also clears up confusion and makes it easier to tag images by giving more standard sizes in more clearly delineated catagories.

Edit: And I'd be willing to put in some of the time to work on retagging as needed if the staff was as well. As it is, since this would consolidate four tags into two, really the only thing that would be absolutely necessary to check are the ones tagged with multiple tags and make sure they're tagged with only a singular instance of breast size.

Alternatively, every size as I noted above could be a catagory of breasts under a (breast_size) addition, and thus could be listed as small (breast_size), normal (breast_size) large (breast_size) and huge (breast_size), with each implying the meta tag breasts (since regardless of size, there are breasts). This would be the most accurate method, I feel. For those females without breast development entirely, they can simply not have the breast tag at all, and flat_chest can be used exclusively for females without a breast tag. I'd be willing to go through the flat_chest tag and fix any pictures with females that are small-breasted before any tag changes, so that flat_chest can be left as is (since there are truly flat-chested females such as Mikhaila, and no doubt it would cause controversy and flaming if she got a small_breasts or small (breast_size) tag).

I think that "natural breasts" should be an invalid tag. How the fuck can you tell on a drawing? It's moot. As for flat chest, then you get into the issue of is it a flatchested girl (flat literally rather than just small breasts) or a cuntboy? What exactly is the difference? I've been meaning to open a thread on discussion of gender tags anyway, I may just do that soon. But I do think huge_breasts should be aliased to hyper_breasts, as should oversized_breasts.

RedOctober said:
I think that "natural breasts" should be an invalid tag. How the fuck can you tell on a drawing? It's moot. As for flat chest, then you get into the issue of is it a flatchested girl (flat literally rather than just small breasts) or a cuntboy? What exactly is the difference? I've been meaning to open a thread on discussion of gender tags anyway, I may just do that soon. But I do think huge_breasts should be aliased to hyper_breasts, as should oversized_breasts.

natural breasts is used to describe breasts that gravity affects, that sag and droop.. naturally. post #132442 as opposed to post #139954 where they appear to be preparing to go into orbit

Honestly, I think that cuntboys should just be marked as such, and flat_chest gets rolled into small_breasts, with all cuntboys getting any breast tags removed. A lot of flat_chest tagged images are just small, budding breasts where you can see either a slight swell around the nipple, or there's a definite roundness. The rest are almost exclusively cuntboys or *shudders* lolis and cubs.

I mean, herms and dickgirls have tags for themselves, why not cuntboys? But, I digress.

Natural breasts are less about size than they are about shape.

123easy said:
Honestly, I think that cuntboys should just be marked as such, and flat_chest gets rolled into small_breasts, with all cuntboys getting any breast tags removed. A lot of flat_chest tagged images are just small, budding breasts where you can see either a slight swell around the nipple, or there's a definite roundness. The rest are almost exclusively cuntboys or *shudders* lolis and cubs.

I mean, herms and dickgirls have tags for themselves, why not cuntboys? But, I digress.

they do. it's called cuntboy

searching "flat_chest cuntboy" results in 4 pictures, one of which was mistagged, and he other three of which didn't give off clear 'cuntboy' vibes outside of someone in the comments saying "it's a boy"

Anyway, yeah. there are some characters out there with FLAT chests.. like shayla_the_pink_mouse, and, yes, loli/cub images.

Natural breasts are less about size than they are about shape.
[/quote]

No, Shayla definitely isn't FLAT chested- Or at least, isn't flat chested as when Shane Nelson started drawing her, what with his art style getting better and then changing form (personally, hate the new look, but liked the end of the original webcomic art style). She's just got rather small breasts, I'd say AA-A range.

As for the cuntboy tag, I shouldn't be, but I'm surprised that there already is a tag for it, and that there's so few tagged it... >_>; There's a TON of pics that need to get tag fixed with that tag.... bleh. I ain't doing it. <_<

123easy said:
No, Shayla definitely isn't FLAT chested- Or at least, isn't flat chested as when Shane Nelson started drawing her, what with his art style getting better and then changing form (personally, hate the new look, but liked the end of the original webcomic art style). She's just got rather small breasts, I'd say AA-A range.

Thing is, to some people, that IS flat chested. I look at pictures of shayla and (besides the faces which, yeah, were TOTALLY better in the webcomic) and I have trouble seeing a girl... I see a guy. That said, looking, I guess I can see some small breasts there. Still..

As for the cuntboy tag, I shouldn't be, but I'm surprised that there already is a tag for it, and that there's so few tagged it... >_>; There's a TON of pics that need to get tag fixed with that tag.... bleh. I ain't doing it. <_<

There are 12 pages of cuntboy pictures (363 pictures I think).. but flat chested is generally used for women, NOT men, and cunt boys, by definition, shouldn't have the flat chest tag. Otherwise the tag is just about useless because all males have flat chests (generally) so, searching flat_chest female will get you just about every straight image there is.

I stand by my statement that that's a few, compared to the number of pictures I've seen with cuntboys that isn't tagged that- Unless a lot of those have since been tag fixed since I saw them last.

cuntboy details that they are breastless, masculine in appearance, but have female genitalia. That to me sounds like the definition of a truly flat-chested female (and not jsuta really small-breasted female) such that Mikhaila should technically be considered a cuntboy by 'tag what you see not what you know' standards.

Either way; I've deailed two possible changes to the tags that might assist with issue. Can I get some commentary on them? Are they too subjective still? Is the variety sufficient to search for what you're looking for?

What if we just ditch the cuntboy tag and use flat_chest instead? You could search for flatchested females and cuntboys at the same time with flat_chest -cub -loli. I mean, they're basically the same thing.

That... sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to me. I've never been overly fond of the term cuntboy anyways- it almost comes across as derogatory. Then flat_chest could imply female if it doesn't already, perhaps, so that people dont stupidly tag it to pictures of males? Or just scrap that if you think it'd be too much for the average tagger to understand.

123easy said:
That... sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to me. I've never been overly fond of the term cuntboy anyways- it almost comes across as derogatory. Then flat_chest could imply female if it doesn't already, perhaps, so that people dont stupidly tag it to pictures of males? Or just scrap that if you think it'd be too much for the average tagger to understand.

Actually I was thinking that cuntboys wouldn't get a gender tag, flatchested females would. So an implication would not be used here.

hrm. but aren't cuntboys effectively female, aside from the lack of breasts?

Also: What about the breast size tag suggestions? >_>;

well, cuntboys are really frustrating.

they deserve a tag of their own, though

the reason they're so aggravating is that you get: post #140227 post #133482 and post #137672 where, yeah. those are indistinguishable from a flatchested girl, really.

but then, then there's post #137657 post #134042 post #100642 where it's pretty damn clear that it's a guy with a vagina.

it's just.. slippery and tricky. :( Because yeah. a cuntboy is effectively female, lacking in breasts... but at the same time, that's totally wrong.

a "real life" cuntboy is a female-to-male trangendered person who has not had bottom surgery done. Breast reduction is pretty easy. testosterone helps with a LARGE number of things. but no amount of wishing turns a vagina into a penis. And the surgical procedures for that process are... well.. let me put it this way: most of the FtM's i know don't bother getting 'bottom surgery' done because the results aren't worth it. They'd rather stick with what they know works, and their enlarged clitoris (which can actually grow to a fair size)... but.. I'm slightly off topic. These people are male, and identify as male. A lot of them are sensitive to being called female for a great number of reasons. So is it any wonder that some of the people who play cuntboys get irate when we day "no, that's a girl"?

that said, there are also the people who play cuntboys because "lol, cuntbois r hot <3" >_<

For the most part, it's the "lol, cuntbois r hot <3" crowd that whine and complain. The ones that are transgendered are usually by far more understanding and willing to help out/explain/correct, I've found.

...Hrm. And can't just lump them and dickgirls under transgendered, because then you get complaints about some dickgirls being "natural".

Why not alias them both under mixed_gender? Herms are both genders should als be put under mixed_gender, and both dickgirls and cuntboys are top part one gender, bottom part the other gender. It's a generic, non-context sensitive tag that can be used to describe all three equally and, honestly, sounds much better than either dickgirl or cuntboy do, as they sound derogatory in nature.

Alternatively, dickgirls can be aliased to futanari, and futanari can imply mixed_gender, while cuntboy could be aliased directly to mixed_gender. Thus, a search of mixed_gender -futanari -herm solo would result in what we now call cuntboy solo, while a search of mixed_gender futanari would get what we now call dickgirls solo or otherwise. If you're picky enough to want to see only cuntboys and dickgirls doing it together (currently 14 images) then you can do a search of mixed_gender -female -male -herm. if the flat_chest tag were applicable only to cuntboys, then we could have cuntboy instead alias to flat_chest and flat_chest imply mixed_gender, like futanari.

That would solve the flat chest issue as well as make a much cleaner tagging setup for cuntboys, herms, and dickgirls; by effectively making a third gender tag with mixed_gender, all three fall under its purview.

Since flat_chest would imply mixed_gender, and it's tag what you see not what you know, if there's even the smallest swelling of breasts so it's no longer a flat chest, like with the majority of lolis and similar, then it instead gets tagged breasts and small (breast_size). That keeps everything impartial and strictly follows the rules for tagging.

Yeah, I think that mightbe the best solution. So then, to detail the tags and tag changes off this line of thinking:

> = Alias
- = Imply

• = New Tag

* Mixed_Gender
* Futanari
Herm - Mixed_Gender
Dickgirl > Futanari
Futanari - Mixed_Gender
Small_Breasts > Small (Breast_Size)
Clean up Flat_Chest so that all small-breasted females are moved to Small (Breast_Size)
Cuntboy > Flat_Chest
Flat_Chest - Mixed_Gender
Breasts > Average (Breast_Size)
Big_Breasts > Large (Breast_Size)
Hyper_Breasts > Huge (Breast_Size)
Oversized_Breasts > Huge (Breast_Size)
* Breasts
Small (Breast_Size) - Breasts
Average (Breast_Size) - Breasts
Large (Breast_Size) - Breasts
Huge (Breast_Size) - Breasts

I think that covers everything?

Edit: Ah, and of course to re-iterate the size differences being made non-subjective: Small (Breast_Size) would be from swelling to fist-sized (AAA/AA to C, roughly), Large (Breast_Size) from fist-sized to head-sized (C to F, roughly), and Huge (Breast_Size) larger than the head (G and up).

This then renders breasts sizes, as well as the non dual-gendered groups, to be disambiguously tagged.

Yeah, I guess cuntboy can't be aliased to flat_chest... also it would wreck the cuntboy -> intersex implication. Causes cuntboys are intersexed, after all.

Aliasing hyper_breasts to huge_breasts sounds good to me. Also, if we alias breasts to average_(breast_size), we can't imply anything to breasts, if would be useless, cause the breasts tag would get changed to average_(breast_size) :P

Ah, I was under the impression that aliasing made it so that that tag transferred everything over to the aliased tag and deleted itself. Again, not that familiar with how the background mechanics work. x-x Sorry, trying to work off what little I know of the system and.. well, mostly guesswork otherwise.

In that case, we can just stick to the current format of just the breasts tag without a size format for ones that are neither mentionably smaller or larger than normal. Would Huge_breasts imply hyper by default, as the wiki definition for it is 'bigger than their head'?

Intersex: That would actually replace mixed_gender in the above format, or vice versa; Depends on how you want it to read. Wasn't aware that intersex was the term already in use.

Cuntboy could stop implying intersex and alias to flat_chest, then flat_chest could imply intersex, as I outlined above- after females with small/budding breasts were properly tagged to small_(breast_size).

Dickgirl: futanari is aliased to it currently, and I think it would be simple to reverse that alias so that futanari is the tag used, unless you don't share the sentiment about the terms, in which case... well, ignore all the intersex-related issues/attempted fixes that seem to be backfiring. >_>;

Also, I need to stop relying on the wiki to tag search. >_>; I don't do it right, and a tag slips past me.

123easy said:
Ah, I was under the impression that aliasing made it so that that tag transferred everything over to the aliased tag and deleted itself. Again, not that familiar with how the background mechanics work. x-x Sorry, trying to work off what little I know of the system and.. well, mostly guesswork otherwise.

You can ask me if you need help with anything.

In that case, we can just stick to the current format of just the breasts tag without a size format for ones that are neither mentionably smaller or larger than normal. Would Huge_breasts imply hyper by default, as the wiki definition for it is 'bigger than their head'?

Not all huge breasts are hyper... The other way round is true, though. Also, hyper_breasts should have a wiki entry, imo.

Cuntboy could stop implying intersex and alias to flat_chest, then flat_chest could imply intersex,

What? Having a flat chest doesn't make you intersexed :/

Dickgirl: futanari is aliased to it currently, and I think it would be simple to reverse that alias so that futanari is the tag used,

Dickgirl works fine, so no.

The only use for flat_chest is for, currently, females (wrongly tagged) and cuntboys. i don't see why not. And again, for futa instead of dickgirl, because it reads as less vulgar, but I understand otherwise. hyper_breasts don't need a wiki entry though, really. Under breasts, it defines hyper breasts as anything larger than your head, thus huge would imply hyper because huge is defined as bigger than your head. They aren't headcrushingly huge where they're more than 50% of the body size by default, but it's still considered hyper.

123easy said:
The only use for flat_chest is for, currently, females (wrongly tagged) and cuntboys. i don't see why not.

So, what, it's wrong to tag flatchested females with flat_chest?

hyper_breasts don't need a wiki entry though, really. Under breasts, it defines hyper breasts as anything larger than your head, thus huge would imply hyper because huge is defined as bigger than your head.

The definition should at least get carried over to the hyper_breasts page...

They aren't headcrushingly huge where they're more than 50% of the body size by default, but it's still considered hyper.

Maybe that's we should consider hyper to be, bigger than the character's head... but what would you do with macro pics? Would you still use that method?

Also, I think we should replace huge with hyper. big_breasts would cover anything from normal breast size to size of head.

okay. this discussion makes my head hurt... too many options, too many rights and wrongs and whys and hows.

but.. how about this..

1) discussion about cuntboys really should be in a thread of it's own, rahter then boob0discussion.

2) How about if flat_chest is expanded to count for cuntboys as well? someone wanting a flat chest and a pussy would be interested (at least visually) in most cuntboys, and if they're really not.. flat_chest -cuntboy isn't hard to type.

but cuntboy DOES need to stay a tag.

I disagree about cuntboy staying. but that goes in the other thread.

If a female is flatchested enough to have absolutely no signs of breasts (her chest looks masculine) then how is she visibly different from a cuntboy? If she isn't visibly different, then she should not be tagged female, as it's tag what you see, not what you know.

If, however, she DOES have breasts BUT they're small (loli, realistically drawn water-based anthros, etc.) then that should be labelled small_(breast_size). Just because they're comparatively flat-chested in a subjective viewpoint (modern day) does not mean they should be subjectively sorted under the flat_chest tag.

Right, alias doesn't remove the old tag, just shifts the given tag- Agreed hyper_breasts should get the info given to it.

Macro pics are all about increasing the size of the character in total proportion. You can have a loli character drawn macro-sized, where they have small breast and otherwise look child-like, but are sitting amongst buildings and smaller (normal-sized) people as if they were toys. If a macro character has breasts bigger than her head, then they would still be huge_(breast_size) and qualify for the hyper tag.

I specifically divorsed hyper from the breast size by using huge because it already implies hyper. having hyper_(breast_size) or the current hyper_breasts and hyper is a redundancy of "hyper". That could have been detailed with searching for hyper and breasts with only a few (one per page at most) being a hypercock with non-hyper breasts. Personally I'd advocate removing hyper_penis as well, because I find them to be too specific a tag.

well.. I"m not sure that post #95748 and post #137565 quite belong bested with huge_breasts and penis. :p

actually, a lot of people find the stupidly huge genitalia of stuff like post #125338 to be a turn off. there's a fine line between "hot" and "not"... hyper* gives something SPECIFIC for people to blacklist if they enjoy GG breasts, but not, say, the boobs that ate cleavland.

there's nothing at all wrong with being specific. :)

But that makes it a subjective thing. They're both effective huge/hyper breasts, one's just much larger than the other. Going by the definition in the wiki here, they're both hyper because that's "<b>Huge breasts</b>: G and up sized breasts; used for the completely unrealistic mammaries seen in the hyper fetish". Unless we change that, or define further, then I don't see the point. Also, the latter would be penis and hyper, just removing the extra hyper_penis tag.

And there's nothing wrong with being specific, but there's such thing as being overly specific. Making tags too specific so you can search a subset of a subset is going too far- Like all the one or two post tags that had only a single attribute of breasts that I went and retagged to consolidate them under one tag (or removed because it was subjective). If you're looking for pictures of guys with hyper dicks, hyper penis male. Add solo if you want them to be solo. add female and you can see males and females with hyper genitalia, and at least one hyper-sized penis.

When there's a LOT of something (such as breasts) then subsets of those should be made (like the breast sizes) but going further and making subsets of those subsets is overspecializing them to a crippling degree.

Except Hyper is a specific fetish. there are people out there who define themselves as "hyper furs"...

and searching "hyper penis" would get you people with hyper breasts who are also in an image with a penis. adding -breasts doesn't help because then you'll not get any images of females. which really sucks if what you want to see is regular girls playing with huge cocks. hyper_penis enables people to find what they want. Or what if you want hyper boobs but don't want to deal with a giant raging cock? but still want the chick with the boobs to be getting fucked? There's not a way.

the fact alone that there are 600 hyper_breasts and 600 hyper_penis pictures suggests that they are not at all too specific.

Scat doesn't even have 300 images. small_breasts, I'll remind, only has about 600. flat_chest the same.

600 is not a small number. I don't think it's being overly specific. Not for something that can be as much of a boner killer as scat, to some people.

Look at the pictures of hyper penis or hyper breasts (separating the two tags). If it's hyper, and it shows more than just a solo pictures- the other is hyper too. People don't just draw hyper with non-hyper. Macro and non-macro, but not hyper and non-hyper. I'm not saying 'remove hyper breasts and have nothing else happen". i've never said that. I said to alias it to huge_breasts and then have huge breasts imply hyper. hyper_breasts and hyper_penis aren't needed and are overly specific when a hyper huge_breasts solo or hyper penis solo would work for either. Other tags don't get an extra tag to subspecialize the searches, and I think it should be uniformly standard in that regard. Otherwise the calls of e621 being an art archive rather than just a porn site with some artsy bits on the side ring hollow against the overspecialized search parameters for sex.

I agree that what is big, huge and hyper requires a little more separation, but I would rather see big and huge lumped together, and leave hyper alone. At the very start my suggestion was, I think

flat chest
small breasts
breasts
large breasts
hyper_breasts

I agree that there need to be fewer tags, but people diagreed and said we need big and huge... and I disagree here and say we need huge and hyper.

Otherwise the calls of e621 being an art archive rather than just a porn site with some artsy bits on the side ring hollow against the overspecialized search parameters for sex.

here's the thing. we ARE an art archive, just a lot of what's in here is sex. If we had, for example, and extensive amount of, say, dancing images, I'd be all for specifying out the different positions and poses. If we had music, I'd be all for figuring out awesome_bass_line and metallica_inspired_guitar and... I dunno. other super specifc music stuff. I would LOVE THE HELL out of this site if each picture was tagged watercolors markers digital_color gauche, etc. If we had more clothed people, I'd be all for jean_jacket turtleneck_sweater miniskirt, loose_socks etc. I actually try to tag clothing, fur/eye/hair colors whenever I can, like i SHOULD be. we have specific my_little_pony and friendship_is_magic tags. we have individual tags for every character. this is true also of the sonic and pokemon etc groupings. we try to be specific where we can.

Hyper_penis and hyper_breasts are different from, say, size JJJJ_breasts or 3_foot_long_dog_cock which are over specific.

Is there a part of the site that you believe needs more specific tagging that we are neglecting?

You've detailed, actually, a reasonable number of specific tagging I feel is missing- ie everything that doesn't have to do with porn/sex. >_>;

And the line you quote there is in reference to the number of times that River's said "we aren't a porn site" or similar lines, while the system seems to encourage the complete opposite (even the tagging page specifies stuff for sex but little else).

On a related but separate note to tags- The "related tags" thing needs to be detailed, not just a dynamic "what things were tagged with this recently? Show tags from that post" setup. That -really- makes it seem like e621 is just for porn more than anything else I've seen. an example would be hair having all the various lengths/colours of hair linked under related, rather than dick pussy anal friendship_is_magic et al.

Well, here's the biggest problem with e621...

We're user-run. Users find art. Users (hopefully ask for permission and) upload art. Users tag art. Users make wiki pages.

Many of the mods and administrators DO upload and DO tag and DO edit wikipages, but there is a LOT of other things the staff have to do, like approve images, delete images, deal with takedown requests, keep an eye on every single comment posted, watch the IRC channel, and more all while also updating the site, coding the site, designing, etc.

e621 is a community. we have ponies because people uploaded ponies. We have anal vore porn because that's what people uploaded. we have pretty kittens and balloons, and baby dragons sitting on a pile of gold coins.. because that's what was uploaded.

We have a lot of porn and sex images... because that's what people uploaded. a lot of the tags are about porn... because that's what people tag. A lot of wiki pages are about porn.. because that's what people write.

"we're not a porn site" is said in reply to the peopel who go "this isn't porn, get rid of it"..

As with most things aroudn her.e.. if you think more images need clothing tagged, go out there and start tagging! write some wiki pages yourself :D the 'wiki coding' isn't at all complicated and I'll help with it if ya need.

I think that's the other reason I was looking to fix the tags, now that I think about it- because by making it more clinical and less... hrm... fetish-sounding, it makes it relate more to the archive format rather than "porn site with stuff attached". Clinical (if dry and dusty) format that nonetheless is accurate- that's what I'm trying to aim for.

Whether or not most of the stuff uploaded is porn or not is secondary to how it's catalogued.

As for tagging: I have a horrid fashion sense and am mostly a recluse (why else do you think I spend the wee hours of the morning and evening arguing on here about implications et al? >_>) so I doubt I can be of much help there. Writing wiki pages reads as being subjective to me unless it was a consensus description that just needed to be written up, which is about the only time that I'll do it; The rest of it has to do with the system itself, and I can't touch that.

Oh, and thinking about it, I can agree that huge and big could fit under large, and hyper be separate as a subset of hyper for people looking specifically for that one thing (even if unless it's a solo shot it has both hyper cock and breasts in the same picture, it seems). That would close off the hyper tag set to a complete self-contained system, while those breasts that are larger than one's head but are not overly so (Hyper seems to be about twice the size or more, thereabouts?) are just large_breasts.

I still feel that we need to discuss small_breasts absorbing all definite females that have simply budding breasts, as it's both derogative and untrue to call them actually flat-chested, cesp. compared to a cuntboy.

regarding clinical vs. fetish -- i can respect that :) but at the same time, we need to be searchable.. and accessible to people who may not use english as a primary language. They may understand cock and pussy but vulva and phallus may evade them...

s for tagging: I have a horrid fashion sense and am mostly a recluse (why else do you think I spend the wee hours of the morning and evening arguing on here about implications et al? >_>) so I doubt I can be of much help there.

as for tagging --it's not hard XD are they clothed? then clothed is there clothing? then clothing is it a skirt, pants, shirt, sweater, uniform, panties, bra, socks, shoes... high_heels, turtleneck... etc. you don't need to know if that's a teddy or a bustier, just that it's lingerie or underwear even.... or this is long_hair this is red_hair.. you don't need to 'know' anything to tag. jsut be patient enough to go 'lamp, desk, shoes, socks, nude, female, gray' etc. :)

Writing wiki pages reads as being subjective to me unless it was a consensus description that just needed to be written up, which is about the only time that I'll do it;

Sometimes, yes, but as you said... "an example would be hair having all the various lengths/colours of hair linked under related" sometimes it's as simple as typing "Pictures with this tag have a character with red hair. Not to be confused with brown_hair or blonde_hair... See also...." or "The cowboy position (or whatever we call it) is a common sexual position. One character lays on their back, while the other stradles them, facing them. This position cna be used for vaginal_penetration or anal_penetration. This position is not tbe be confused with reverse_cowboy. see also missionary position and agaisnt the wall." or "This tag indicates that there is most likely a character with blue fur in the image but may also indicate a large amount of blue in the image. This tad does not indicate sad or depression, it refers to the color."

now, aside of that... the problem is we need to reach a consensuch. all of us.. and there isn't one to be had right now.

personally, though, I don't find flat_chest to be derogatory, and I'm female c_c; it can be used an an insult, but ANYTHING can be used as an insult. but. the thing is, ti's not a yes-or-no thing. some guys have "breasts".. some guys have *boobs* even. even if we did go through with the idea of flatchest only applying to cuntboys, there will eventually be a cuntboy woth man-boobs that throws everythign off ._.

If a cuntboy has boobs, screw them, screw the artist, that's a damn female. Done. :P

Tagging: Oh, I can do the basics- I mean, I've almost 200 tag edits already, on things I'm fairly confident of. But tagging to turtleneck or teddy etc. I couldn't do. Clothing and lingerie are the best that you'll get out of me in those cases. :P

Wiki pages: Yeah, but those are general things that i think we all know. it's the ones that aren't obvious that if anything need the wiki pages, adn those are the ones without consensus.

Okay... Please forgive me if this is out of place. The forum was linked to me so I could see the past discussion about breast size. Personally, I'm a gay man and, while I'm okay with the female form, I'm not interested in 'large breasts'. Therefore, I've blacklisted "big_breasts", "huge_breasts", and "hyper_breasts". I don't want to blacklist "breasts" as well. (I don't much care for MLP, but I won't blacklist that either, cause there are some enjoyable MLP-related posts from time to time.)

We have a number of options available, as this discussion points out. And what one would call "big" another might call "hyper". To that end, I have added "big_breasts" to a number of pics... perhaps to too many new posts. I basically figure that if I can see the breasts clearly in the thumbnail, it ought to be tagged.

Also... there are two sides to tagging... it's easier to search for posts that are of interest and it's quick and painless to block posts that we'd rather not see. The biggest issue, imho, is if those that post Know about the available tags and then actually use them.

Either way... I'll turn a blind eye to posts that include females that, to me, are more that naturally endowed.

I'm not even going to bother reading all of this mess. I just know that hyper_breasts is in a class of its own. Huge_breasts is for breasts that are bigger than 1 head size (big), but not hyper (like 4 head sizes).

DragonRI said:
Okay... Please forgive me if this is out of place. The forum was linked to me so I could see the past discussion about breast size. Personally, I'm a gay man and, while I'm okay with the female form, I'm not interested in 'large breasts'. Therefore, I've blacklisted "big_breasts", "huge_breasts", and "hyper_breasts". I don't want to blacklist "breasts" as well. (I don't much care for MLP, but I won't blacklist that either, cause there are some enjoyable MLP-related posts from time to time.)

We have a number of options available, as this discussion points out. And what one would call "big" another might call "hyper". To that end, I have added "big_breasts" to a number of pics... perhaps to too many new posts. I basically figure that if I can see the breasts clearly in the thumbnail, it ought to be tagged.

Also... there are two sides to tagging... it's easier to search for posts that are of interest and it's quick and painless to block posts that we'd rather not see. The biggest issue, imho, is if those that post Know about the available tags and then actually use them.

Either way... I'll turn a blind eye to posts that include females that, to me, are more that naturally endowed.

And this is why I said we need a more definied setup for breast sizes that can be standard, but no.... :P

123easy said:
And this is why I said we need a more definied setup for breast sizes that can be standard, but no.... :P

Even if we have a standard, it won't matter if those that post the new pics aren't aware of the standard or just don't bother to use it for one reason or another.

This is a community-based site, though. We can't force users to tag "appropriately", only urge them and educate them. Personally, I thought I was helping by adding tags for pics that seemed to be missing some nuances. (Granted, I may have gone overboard.) *blush*

That's what a wiki is for. And we'll always have some people who never bother to tag right. That's what tag editors/cleanup crew are for.

I think if we had a group of people who we actually thought would go through and retag all of the boob images to match up with current standards, AND keep and eye on it and help to educate uploaders on the changes (PMing to notify about adjusted wiki, etc), then we might consider adjusting the system.

Unfortunatly a large number of proposed changes often result in people having to water their planets when it comes down to "So, who's going to get started on this?"

SnowWolf said:
Unfortunatly a large number of proposed changes often result in people having to water their planets when it comes down to "So, who's going to get started on this?"

LOL! Well said, SnowWolf.

But seriously... I guess it's time to "put up or shut up" for me. After all, it was my so-called "helping out" that led to this forum being pointed out to me in the first place. :p What I'm saying is if the mods want to establish guidelines, I'll certainly pitch in to assist.

Good man. :)

well, how about this. I'm not rereading over this while thread right now (I've got a number of HUGE projects that are sucking up a lot of my time right now), but as I recall, it derailed HORRIBLY in the middle of it and went off in non relevant ways, in conversation about cunt boys.

So... why don't you start a new, and fresh topic, and come up with a proposal for how to sort boobs out, and we'll discuss from there. :D

IOt got "derailed" because of people demanding that flat_chest be applied to itty bitty titties.

And because of people insisting that flat_chest be applied only to people with no chest what-so-ever.

Okay... I'll read through this topic, make some notes, and put something together for a new forum. I'll post a message here when I'm done. (I don't think it will take too long.)

SnowWolf said:
And because of people insisting that flat_chest be applied only to people with no chest what-so-ever.

Because that's what a flat chest is. If they have small tits, they're still small tits.

And thus why the topic fell horribly off topic.

it's amazing what two contrasting points of view can do.

Dragon, looking forward to you post <3

SnowWolf said:
And thus why the topic fell horribly off topic.

it's amazing what two contrasting points of view can do.

Dragon, looking forward to you post <3

Thanks... busy with work this weekend, but I think I'm almost done with something. :)

Okay... I've started a new Forum, as you've probably noticed. Sadly, I'm not sure how to include a link from here to there, or vice versa.

As you'll see, I've started with three posts... some background, some options from here, and lastly (and least) my own suggestion. I hope that my getting a bit wordy doesn't throw anyone off.

So... here's the new title: Tagging of Breast Sizes - a new Forum; it's also forum #20968.

DragonRI said:
Okay... I've started a new Forum, as you've probably noticed. Sadly, I'm not sure how to include a link from here to there, or vice versa.

As you'll see, I've started with three posts... some background, some options from here, and lastly (and least) my own suggestion. I hope that my getting a bit wordy doesn't throw anyone off.

So... here's the new title: Tagging of Breast Sizes - a new Forum; it's also forum #20968.

well Damn! auto linking! w00t!!!