Okay... here goes nothing :s

A month or so ago, a Forum (forum #17012) was started on the topic of breast size. There was a bit of confusion and a number of alternatives were presented. There was also a bit of a discussion that went off-topic. In an attempt to bring some consensus, I've started this new Forum topic.

Early on in the other Forum, a list of various existing tags, along with their counts, was listed as:

breasts – 39,493 posts (now 42,680)
big_breasts – 5,743 (6,661)
huge_breasts – 1,332 (1,462)
hyper_breasts – 600 (625)
small_breasts – 520 (545)
natural_breasts – 11 (41)
bouncing_breasts – 21 (25)
oversized_breasts – 22 (22)
droopy_breasts – 22 (0)
perky_breasts – 2 (0)
heavy_breasts – 1 (0)
sagging_breasts – 1 (0)
tiny_breasts – 1 (0)

However, it appears that some of these tags have already been aliased (is that a real word?) into other tags.

From Wiki, we have the following descriptions:
Breasts: This tag is used any time bare breasts appear for a female character, or where a her clothed breasts are prominently featured.
Flat_chest: No breast mound
Small_breasts: A to B cup sized breasts
Big_breasts: D to F cup sized breasts
Huge_breasts: G and up sized breasts, Hyper fetish

flat_chest: applied to female characters whose breasts are 'undeveloped or nonexistent', either because of being underage or of a species where breasts wouldn't normally exist, such as reptiles.

small_breasts: female characters with smaller than average breasts, either just naturally small or still not fully developed. This does not refer to a character whose breasts haven't started to develop or would be completely without breasts (aka, flat_chest).

big_breasts: Breasts that are above average in size, but no bigger than the female's head.

huge_breasts: 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.

hyper_breasts: hyper-endowed, unrealistically large, more than can be considered artistic license.

In the previous forum, we had a few suggestions:

flat_chest – self-explanatory
small_breasts – slight curves [or puffy nipples]
breasts – unremarkable or average in size
large_breasts – above average in size
hyper_breasts – ridiculously large, unrealistically huge

---------------------------

small_breasts – flat to slight bumps [puffy nips], not quite obvious; cups AAA – B
breasts – visible, average, just a handful, in perspective; C & D
large_breasts – above average, but smaller than the head of the character; D through F
huge_breasts – larger than head-sized; G and up

-----------------------

flat_chest
small_breasts
breasts
large_breasts
hyper_breasts

And now for my 2-cents' worth. I'm not sure that I'm the best judge in some ways, though maybe being a gay man imparts some form of impartiality. :p I also remember a phrase from "the older boys at school" that anything more than a mouthful is a waste. Personally, I have some of the existing tags blacklisted because I really don't want to see those pics. Just me, though.

My thoughts, though... we should limit this discussion to female characters. Please let's not get caught up with herms, intersex, and the like. We may want to have another forum to discuss breast size for those chars.

I think that the current list of
flat_chest
small_breasts
breasts
big_breasts
huge_breasts
hyper_breasts
is a bit much. I would suggest that "big" and "huge" be merged. Perhaps, for the sake of the way that tags are related and implied already, the two of these tags become "large_breasts" instead. Anything currently labeled as "big" or "huge" would then become "large". (If my understanding of the mechanics of the site is accurate.)

While cup sizes have been suggested in the past, the letters mean absolutely nothing to me! I wouldn't abolish the letters, because they do make sense to others, but we should use both the sizes and something relative as well.

My suggestions (long story, long?):
flat_chest: technically not a breast tag since the breasts are not visible or developed... for undeveloped breasts or creatures (non-mammals) that normally wouldn't have visible breasts. (The female dragon from the comic "Here There Be Dragons" comes to mind, when our hero just realizes the gender of his captor.)

small_breasts: barely developed, slight mounds (training bra to A-cup)
large_breasts: above average (above fist size?), but smaller than the character's head (cups D through F)
hyper_breasts: much larger than average, larger then her head (G cup and larger)

Obviously, the "breasts" tag would include these three other subsets and any pic of a female character in which her breasts are visible or featured (as Wiki currently says).

Anyway... those are my thoughts and stuff. I look forward to seeing your feedback, comments, suggestions, etc.

Happy posting! ^^

I kinda don't think that big and huge are the same. I think:

Flat_chest - flat
Small_breasts - small
Breasts - average size
Big_breasts - Around 1 head size
Huge_breasts - around 2 head sizes
Hyper_breasts - Anything obviously oversized, like Gideon

Ultima_Weapon said:
I kinda don't think that big and huge are the same. I think:

Flat_chest - flat
Small_breasts - small
Breasts - average size
Big_breasts - Around 1 head size
Huge_breasts - around 2 head sizes
Hyper_breasts - Anything obviously oversized, like Gideon

I think breasts needs to be implied by everything in that list except flat_chest. Pick a new tag for average sized breasts, because we need an umbrella tag too.

Snowy said:
I think breasts needs to be implied by everything in that list except flat_chest. Pick a new tag for average sized breasts, because we need an umbrella tag too.

As I keep saying, the hardest problem with a "pick a new tag' for something like 'breasts' is that *someone* needs to do it. Initialing a tag project like THIS (of an aggressively actively used and relevant tag), it needs to be done over a few weeks at most. THEN, someone needs to keep an eye on uploaders and make sure that they know the 'new rules'.

Breasts are not a small topic, no pun intended.

When I search for tags by count, ere are the top 4 results:

78669 - female
61842 - male
59308 - solo
42765 - breasts

What's this mean? it means that there are 40,000 pictures tagged breasts that would need to be retagged, and there are abuot 20,000 OTHER pictures that should probably have breasts tagged on it also (picture where you can't see character's face because of boobs? yeah.)

So, if we had a swarm of people willing to do this tremendous undertaking, and this was possible, my "ideal magical tags would be, say..

tiny breasts - for small AND flat chests.
average_breasts - for "normal" breasts"
big
huge
hyper

I debated a long while between big and huge, thought about rolling them into one large tag, but Ultima IS right. . there's a difference between slightly-larger-then-average and HUGE gazongas. The problem is... how do you differenciate? Is "big" larger then huge?" what does joe fur think to type?

Maybe something like large_breasts and massive_breasts.... but then, massive suggests the hyper sizes again.

we could get clinical and go
tiny_breasts
average breasts
slightly_larger_breasts
really_big_breasts
hyper_breasts

but that's.. combersome.

head-sized_breasts?
bugger than_headsized?

and then there's the problem that I don't really *see* too much difference between big_ large_and SOME of what's in hyper_ right now. they're that jumbled up. which means people don't understand what they are NOW....

but all of this is sort of moot as all of that would involve retagging everything tagged 'breasts' right now c_c;

First there should be more of a generalized clean up. I saw some things in big_breasts that make me go "oh god, tha'ts hyper" and manythings in hyper that made me say "eh, tha'ts big."

BUT

I do agree that everything should imply breasts. or maybe breasts_(body_part) or something, though that's... cumbersome also

SnowWolf said:
I debated a long while between big and huge, thought about rolling them into one large tag, but Ultima IS right. . there's a difference between slightly-larger-then-average and HUGE gazongas. The problem is... how do you differenciate? Is "big" larger then huge?" what does joe fur think to type?

Big_breasts (i'm used to using large_breasts) should be about the size of a standard size character's head, while huge_breasts is about twice that, and anything that's bigger than that is hyper_breasts.

and then there's the problem that I don't really *see* too much difference between big_ large_and SOME of what's in hyper_ right now. they're that jumbled up. which means people don't understand what they are NOW....

Big_breasts and huge_breasts are kind of subjective, which means that people need to be use their best judgement (and common sense) when tagging them. They're jumbled up because people suck at tagging, really badly. I think that regular size breasts could be tagged as average_breasts, but since we can't do an alias for all of the images of average size breasts with the standard catch-all Breasts tag, there's probably going to be a metric fuckoad of manual re-tagging.

With enough of us, the retagging could be accomplished in a decent amount of time. I'm cool with the idea of an average_breast tag to work between small and big. And I agree with Ultima about size being kinda subjective. That's what's led to the current situation (as well as Some laziness, perhaps).

The idea of basing the tag on cup size or something relative like fist or head size helps to clarify things, at least a little. That's really what we need to do before we worry about cleaning up and moving forward. We need to agree on what is considered "big" as opposed to "huge". Either we can come up with some consensus here or someone will need to establish some guidelines by fiat. Once we have something we can work with, we can go through the existing posts to clean things up. Otherwise, I could change something from 'big' to 'average' only to have someone else switch it back a little while later.

We CAN do this, of course... we just need some consensus or direction then a group of us to put it into action. :)

I fully support tiny_breasts for use on images currentl;y tagged flat_chest because they have small tits.

As for the other sizes, I agree most with this list:

average_breasts
large_breasts
hyper_breasts

Any breast that's the size of their head is freaking HUGE and qualifies as hyper. I mean, you'd say the same about a set of balls that big, or a cock the size of a guy's forearm. I wouldn't be adverse to huge_breasts being retained and falling under the hyper_breast tag and applying to the lower end of the hyper spectrum, though.

123easy said:
I fully support tiny_breasts for use on images currentl;y tagged flat_chest because they have small tits.

As for the other sizes, I agree most with this list:

average_breasts
large_breasts
hyper_breasts

Any breast that's the size of their head is freaking HUGE and qualifies as hyper. I mean, you'd say the same about a set of balls that big, or a cock the size of a guy's forearm. I wouldn't be adverse to huge_breasts being retained and falling under the hyper_breast tag and applying to the lower end of the hyper spectrum, though.

But the thing is that in real life, balls and forearms have a very small size spectrum, while breasts can range from flat, to the size that Norma Stitz has, So i'm firmly against huge_breasts falling under hyper. You also have to take into account the size of the breasts relative to the body and head. I looked up some examples:

Average_breasts
post #40520
post #40523
post #37325
post #55553

Large_breasts
post #119
post #40513

Huge_breasts
post #132041
post #110385

Hyper_breasts
post #130438
post #148588
post #143715

Remember, if any of the examples with hyper_Breasts had a much larger body, and the same size breasts, they wouldn't count as hyper anymore. You have to judge by relativity, and not just size alone. We wouldn't count giants with large breasts as hyper, now would we?

123easy said:
Any breast that's the size of their head is freaking HUGE and qualifies as hyper. I mean, you'd say the same about a set of balls that big, or a cock the size of a guy's forearm. I wouldn't be adverse to huge_breasts being retained and falling under the hyper_breast tag and applying to the lower end of the hyper spectrum, though.

Dear diary,
Today, I achieve hyper status.
I'm so proud.
In other news, my back still hurts.
Love,
SnowWolf

Congrats, SnowWolf! *hugs*

Personally, I don't have much preference for whether we have Large, Huge, and Hyper or just Large and Hyper. Anything larger than those "average" pics posted by Ultima are a turn-off for me, and that last under "average" is pushing it. :p

What I guess I'm saying is... I don't know enough about the Hyper fandom to know what they would consider as hyper versus "just" huge. It would be great if someone that has an interest would add their two-cents' worth! *whistles idly*

Just saying, we know what "hyper" means in the furry community, and I don't want pictures with huge_breasts being lumped in with pictures the eqiuvalent of an average person with garbage bag-sized tits. Most of the hyper art i've seen is shit, and i'd rather not have it being the umbrella tag for everything above large_breasts.

Just popping by to see if there are other comments. (well, I do so anyway, but wanted to leave a message that I hadn't forgotten) :p

The thing is, g-sized breasts ARE hyper-sized. And yes, it's all relative to the body- If you have ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ-cup breasts on a macro, well- Likely they'd be rather small comparative to their overall body size. The same for a character of mouse size with tits bigger than grapes. G-cup and larger breasts on normally sized characters (and the equivalent sizes at other scales) are hyper-sized, natural or otherwise. For the record, I love me dem huge titties to gawk at. And I hate those absolutely huge stonking tits with the veins and the nipples big enough to eat a man and eugh. But my personal preference won't colour my opinion about how it should be sorted just because I don't like it. It's why I said to put it at the lower end of the spectrum, and have it be under hyper_breasts as a subtag.

@SnowWolf: Hubba hubba, babe! :P *offers you an over-the-shoulder-boulder-holder of appropriate capacity*

Here's a bit of fun for everyone. Everyone knows that bra sizes are listed as follows: 32B .. a number, then a letter.

The number represents the measurement around the woman's ribcage, jsut under the breasts. The Letter is derived from the difference between the below-the-breasts measurement, and a measurement taken around the breasts themselves.

The difference between a B and C cup in someone who measures 30 inches around is much smaller then the differnece between B and C in someone who is 40 inches around.

Bra fitting is a very complicated and conveluted process, made worse by the fact that companies vary wildly in cut and design, so there isn't a good STANDARD one can use. Most women wear the wrong sized bra (and by most I mean about 80%) and incorrectly assume that jsut because they wear a 34Bwith one brand, that they should for ALL brands.

Add in the fact that women have different breast shapes, some women sag considerably (if you're over a C cup, you probably sag at least a little)...

But, the cup volume changes with the number. The cup on a 30D bra is the same as a 32C bra, a 34B bra and a 36A bra. Yes, really.

So.. miss ZZZZZZZZZZZ-cup? her tits are fucking huge. her tits are bigger then she is. Probably. Did I mention that the letters aren't universal either?

One country says says A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q etc.
Another says AA B C D DD DDD E EE EEE...

Oh wait, but then we bring companies back in where one company says F G H I J K, abouter says F FF G, abouter says E F FF G, another says F G GG H HH I II J JJ K KK, abother says PX XPS XXPS, another comany uses DDD-or-F FF-or-G GG H-or-HH I-or-II..

if you want al ook at some of the fucktardedness, http://babyslime.livejournal.com/620498.html has a fantastic chart showing the WTF-ery of it all. Also, to actually enticeyou to look, a lot of nice boob shots.

So.. my TL;DR point here is, ZZZZZZZZZZcup breasts on a macro are planet sized. A cup breasts on a macro are probably larger then you are.

Cup sizes vary. A cup is not universal. Bra sizes are fucking retarded.

Also: cartoon characters don't HAVE bras with tags we can look at. jus' sayin'.

SnowWolf said:
Some stuff

O...K? Any feedback on the tagging debate?

Ultima_Weapon said:
O...K? Any feedback on the tagging debate?

....
let me translate, then, since you can't read between the lines...

Dear person above me, discussing ZZZZZZZZZZZZ-cup breasts on on a macro. Your information is wrong. This is why it's wrong. This is why cupsize is not a good measurement of breast size. Now you have gained knowledge. Due to the general confusion over breast cup sizes, EVEN AMONG WOMEN, let's not use cup size as a rule of thumb, because most males will get it totally wrong. Love, SnowWolf.

SnowWolf said:
....
let me translate, then, since you can't read between the lines...

Dear person above me, discussing ZZZZZZZZZZZZ-cup breasts on on a macro. Your information is wrong. This is why it's wrong. This is why cupsize is not a good measurement of breast size. Now you have gained knowledge. Due to the general confusion over breast cup sizes, EVEN AMONG WOMEN, let's not use cup size as a rule of thumb, because most males will get it totally wrong. Love, SnowWolf.

Thanks, I read through all of it, but wasn't paying attention as much as I should, because I was shitting on people in Black Ops during Nuketown 24/7. You don't love us though...

<3

Actually I do. All of y'all care enough abut this little website (that I also care about) to share your opinions on things and that's pretty damn awesome.

SnowWolf said:
....
let me translate, then, since you can't read between the lines...

Dear person above me, discussing ZZZZZZZZZZZZ-cup breasts on on a macro. Your information is wrong. This is why it's wrong. This is why cupsize is not a good measurement of breast size. Now you have gained knowledge. Due to the general confusion over breast cup sizes, EVEN AMONG WOMEN, let's not use cup size as a rule of thumb, because most males will get it totally wrong. Love, SnowWolf.

Actually, i knew all that already. I was thinking that ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ-cup on a normal sized person being then put onto a macro. I failed to illustrate that properly- In fact, i'd say I showed that rather abysmally- However, that was what i was meaning by what I was trying to say.

this all said, i definitely agree cup size is a horrid measurement. It's why I've argued against it at all cases. G-cup was a generalization because that's about when they start to get bigger than the person who has them's head.

Okay... it seems that the convo has kinda run it's course. It also seems like there are just the four of us interested enough to put in our ideas and thoughts. I think it's about time to wrap up the chat and start putting a plan into action.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the consensus is to have a general "breasts" tag for all of the following:

small_breasts
average_breasts
big_breasts
huge_breasts
hyper_breasts

I know there was a bit of discussion on 'big' vs 'large' but I figure that since the 'big' tag exists, we should keep it. The only new tag would be for the generic 'average' breasts.

While I never knew the intricacies of bra sizes O.o I agree that we should use something a bit more... obvious or something to distinguish between big and huge and hyper... something like relating the size of the breasts to some other part of the anatomy, such as the head or fist or whatever. My suggestions (using the pics posted above by Ultima) then:

small: just the beginning of mounds, the development of breast tissue
average: about the size of the character's hand, forepaw
big: about the size of the character's head
huge: obviously larger than the character's head
hyper: nearly as large as the character's torso, or larger still.

My other suggestion would be for those of us interested in this to work on a particular area, such as tagging huge vs hyper. Not to 'volunteer' anyone, but maybe 123 would like this? (Something I would do, but so NOT my bag of tea! LOL) I'll see how you feel about this and step in where necessary. I think that all of us will need to work on 'average' only cause of the size of That undertaking.

Thanks for your feedback and participation!!! :D

One last thing I wanted to add, and do so separately: what do we, as a group, want to do about "flat_chests"? Keep it or roll it into "small_breasts"?

Please vote (and other feedback, if you'd like)!

DragonRI said:
One last thing I wanted to add, and do so separately: what do we, as a group, want to do about "flat_chests"? Keep it or roll it into "small_breasts"?

Please vote (and other feedback, if you'd like)!

I guess we could use small_breasts, although either are fine with me.

I'd rather se small_breasts cover flat chest and small breasts :)

but.. there is one other aspect to think of.. the problem with big and huge as words is that there isn't a CLEAR indicator of which is which, and peopel will type in whatever comes to mind, often without looking at the wiki to see which is which.... and thigns will be mistagged...

that said, I don't htink there are better words without getting into really dumb measures of tagging (large and larger, for example :P

okay, anyway....
Uhm.. from where I'm siting, this is mostly a 'clean up the tags' project for now. separating big huge and hyper into the right piles, tagging average breasts as average...

small and flat chested--if universally agreeed on-- can be done swiftly by a mod.

Really feel small_chest should be weeded out of cuntboys and be aliased to small_breasts- Or weed it out of the small_breasted girls and have them simply retagged, so you can still use small_chest to search for cuntboys (what seems to be its use?). Either or.

So are we redoing the sizes of the breasts, then? Do the old sizes no longer fit? And i don't mean the actual cup sizes, i mean the general breast sizes that fall into the cup sizes.

<b>Small breasts</b>: A to B cup sized breasts
<b>Big breasts</b>: D to F cup sized breasts
<b>Huge breasts</b>: G and up sized breasts; used for the completely unrealistic mammaries seen in the hyper fetish.

If so, then I think we should still discuss the size catagories a bit more. The suggested new setup was:

small_breasts
average_breasts
big_breasts
huge_breasts
hyper_breasts

And I agree with that. But not entirely with...

small: just the beginning of mounds, the development of breast tissue
average: about the size of the character's hand, forepaw
big: about the size of the character's head
huge: obviously larger than the character's head
hyper: nearly as large as the character's torso, or larger still.

Small is fine, fitting things like post #130294 through post #95481 for example.
Average I see being about post #153917 sized; A little bigger, little smaller, but generally everything between small and big would fit there on eyeballing.
Big is where I start having problems. post #149495 are big breasts, not average size- But they aren't as big as her head, either. Same with post #151357 as well. They definitely are NOT average either.
Huge being bigger/as big as the head I can agree with. Always have. The problem with them I've had is they should also be classed under hyper, even if they aren't the overly-huge hyper_breasts as one would find in post #135950 or post #131492 ; This stems from the fact that breasts like post #62926 or post #58028 are obvious huge, to the point each one is individually about the size of her head and then some, but not overly huge as the previously mentioned hyper_breasts sized breasts are.

Maybe we can call hyper_breasts Gideon_breasts instead? :P

It's been a couple of days, so I thought I'd add another comment to reach some conclusion.

It seems that we basically agree with merging "flat_chest" into "small_breasts". Personally, I'd keep them separate, but I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it, either.

I suggested the references (eg, about the size of the character's head) as something that would be easy to determine looking at the pic.

I agree, 123easy, that from "big_breasts" and larger we have an issue. Again, personally I have no problem with just "big" and "hyper". However, I'm not really familiar with the whole "hyper" genre. It does seem to me that "hyper" needs to still relate to what's generally expected for that label. We could use the cup size as a reference, but that's even more nebulous for me.

We start to become subjective, after a point. What one of us may call "big" another would call "average". We need to have something that we can base our tagging on, something that we can use to inform others, and something that we can use as a basis to update wiki (which I assume would need to be handled).

GAH! We need to come up with something soon so we can make this happen. I'd hate to see this project fade before we can implement it. :s

DragonRI said:
We start to become subjective, after a point. What one of us may call "big" another would call "average". We need to have something that we can base our tagging on, something that we can use to inform others, and something that we can use as a basis to update wiki (which I assume would need to be handled).

That's the thing though, it's subjective by nature. We just have to use our best judgement. My examples are of course, subjective, but I base my standards for breasts sizes on more than one variable (breast size, body size, and head size) So I can avoid overlapping as much as possible and to try and provide a clearer standard for others.

Ultima_Weapon said:
That's the thing though, it's subjective by nature. We just have to use our breast judgement. My examples are of course, subjective, but I base my standards for breasts sizes on more than one variable (breast size, body size, and head size) So I can avoid overlapping as much as possible and to try and provide a clearer standard for others.

Made a typo there. xP

Seriously, though, so do I. Thus why I honestly feel that the original tagging of big, huge and hyper, with the addition of huge also applying the metatag hyper, was sufficient for those sizes. Huge is sorta like hyper-lite; It fits within that general fetish, but on the far low end. *grins* it's the gateway to bigger boobs. :P

Just a bit off topic here, but how would people be with implying hyper_breasts -> huge_breasts -> big_breasts -> breasts?
Another thing to consider would be implying small_breasts -> breasts.

But many people blacklist hyper, and having huge fall under hyper would have a lot of people not seeing images that they might not consider as hyper material, due to the subjective nature of how people judge breast size. I'm just not for that implication.

Riversyde said:
Just a bit off topic here, but how would people be with implying hyper_breasts -> huge_breasts -> big_breasts -> breasts?
Another thing to consider would be implying small_breasts -> breasts.

I'm against hyper implicating huge.

Ultima_Weapon said:
I'm against hyper implicating huge.

Why? Hyper = huge. If you like huge breasts, but don't like hyper, blacklist hyper_breasts.

Riversyde said:
Just a bit off topic here, but how would people be with implying hyper_breasts -> huge_breasts -> big_breasts -> breasts?
Another thing to consider would be implying small_breasts -> breasts.

The problem with that is that if you just want big_breasts (as in, not hyper) you'd have to go big_breast -hyper_breasts (and even -huge_breasts if you were wanting to be that specific).

Ultima_Weapon said:
But many people blacklist hyper, and having huge fall under hyper would have a lot of people not seeing images that they might not consider as hyper material, due to the subjective nature of how people judge breast size. I'm just not for that implication.

And thus we meet at an impasse again. Huge breasts -are- hyper, by current definition; And that definition is a rather fair measure for it, to be perfectly honest. It's simply gone unimplicated under Hyper for whatever reason, though the definition explicitly states (And I agree with it, though again on the far low end) that bigger than one's head = hyper, which Huge breasts fall under.

If it's just about you wanting to have the hyper tag blacklisted but still see huge stonking tits- Why not just blacklist the rest of the hyper tags (hyper_breasts, hyper_balls, hyper_penis) and leave the metatag unblocked?

Or as River said:

Riversyde said:
Why? Hyper = huge. If you like huge breasts, but don't like hyper, blacklist hyper_breasts.

To give a little insight to why I press for this, and other similar points: To me, metatags are classification/clarification, and thus huge should be under hyper by definition, regardless of personal fetish preference.

Riversyde said:
Just a bit off topic here, but how would people be with implying hyper_breasts -> huge_breasts -> big_breasts -> breasts?
Another thing to consider would be implying small_breasts -> breasts.

*squints*

You mean...

hyper_breasts implies huge breasts
huge_breasts implies big_breasts
big_breasts implies breasts?

So that a picture with hyper breasts ends up tagged with hyper, huge, big AN breasts?

.... you know, I kind of like that, honestly.

Riversyde said:
Why? Hyper = huge. If you like huge breasts, but don't like hyper, blacklist hyper_breasts.

If hyper implicates huge, wouldn't an image that has huge breasts also be affected by the blacklist, due to the hyper tag also being stamped on? I don't use blacklists, but if i'm looking for something specific, I don't want to have to wade through lots of other stuff.

SnowWolf said:
*squints*

You mean...

hyper_breasts implies huge breasts
huge_breasts implies big_breasts
big_breasts implies breasts?

So that a picture with hyper breasts ends up tagged with hyper, huge, big AN breasts?

.... you know, I kind of like that, honestly.

Again, then if you wanted big breasts, but NOT hyper or huge, you'd have to search for big_breasts -hyper_breasts -huge_breasts.

123easy said:
The problem with that is that if you just want big_breasts (as in, not hyper) you'd have to go big_breast -hyper_breasts (and even -huge_breasts if you were wanting to be that specific).

Not "and" even, "or" even.

SnowWolf said:
You mean...

hyper_breasts implies huge breasts
huge_breasts implies big_breasts
big_breasts implies breasts?

So that a picture with hyper breasts ends up tagged with hyper, huge, big AN breasts?

.... you know, I kind of like that, honestly.

Yeah, and by definition, it's perfectly fine to make these implications.

tony311 said:
Again, then if you wanted big breasts, but NOT hyper or huge, you'd have to search for big_breasts -hyper_breasts -huge_breasts.

Uh, no, if hyper breasts implicates huge breasts, you'd only have to search big_breasts -huge_breasts.

Ultima_Weapon said:
If hyper implicates huge, wouldn't an image that has huge breasts also be affected by the blacklist, due to the hyper tag also being stamped on? I don't use blacklists, but if i'm looking for something specific, I don't want to have to wade through lots of other stuff.

No, it wouldn't.

Riversyde said:
Uh, no, if hyper breasts implicates huge breasts, you'd only have to search big_breasts -huge_breasts.
No, it wouldn't.

First part true enough. Second though: If you blacklist Hyper, then search huge_breasts if it applies Hyper, it would hide them all. I just attempted this under searching hyper_breasts after blacklisting hyper and that is in fact how it works (unless you hit the "hidden" link to the left).

Riversyde said:
Not "and" even, "or" even.

No, "and" even. I stated "to be that specific" for a reason: If you wanted ONLY big_breasts, and hyper and huge both implied big, then to see only big_breasts you'd need to exclude them both. Due to the way I framed my comment, using hyper first, you WOULD need to exclude both individually in that order (ie; kneejerk reaction 'eew, hyper. i didn't want that!' *enters -hyper_breasts into search* Hey, why am I still getting breasts bigger than i want? *sees that huge_breasts imply big_breasts after a bit of herpderping in the implication page* FFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU *adds to search*)

Huge_breasts should be implying hyper, but not hyper_breasts. "breasts" should be the largest pool, and each size should separately imply it, but no other breast size tag.

SnowWolf said:
hyper_breasts implies huge breasts
huge_breasts implies big_breasts
big_breasts implies breasts

I don't see why huge_breasts should imply big_breasts if hyper_breasts already implies huge_breasts. I feel that big_breasts should imply breasts, and shouldn't be implied by anything.

123easy said:
If you blacklist Hyper, then search huge_breasts if it applies Hyper, it would hide them all. I just attempted this under searching hyper_breasts after blacklisting hyper and that is in fact how it works (unless you hit the "hidden" link to the left).

Huge breasts isn't going to imply hyper or hyper breasts.

No, "and" even. I stated "to be that specific" for a reason: If you wanted ONLY big_breasts, and hyper and huge both implied big, then to see only big_breasts you'd need to exclude them both. Due to the way I framed my comment, using hyper first, you WOULD need to exclude both individually in that order (ie; kneejerk reaction 'eew, hyper. i didn't want that!' *enters -hyper_breasts into search* Hey, why am I still getting breasts bigger than i want? *sees that huge_breasts imply big_breasts after a bit of herpderping in the implication page* FFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU *adds to search*)

Huge_breasts should be implying hyper, but not hyper_breasts. "breasts" should be the largest pool, and each size should separately imply it, but no other breast size tag.

Hyper breasts will imply huge breasts. Huge breasts will not imply hyper.

123easy said:

River said:

123easy said:
The problem with that is that if you just want big_breasts (as in, not hyper) you'd have to go big_breast -hyper_breasts (and even -huge_breasts if you were wanting to be that specific).

Not "and" even, "or" even.

First part true enough. Second though: If you blacklist Hyper, then search huge_breasts if it applies Hyper, it would hide them all. I just attempted this under searching hyper_breasts after blacklisting hyper and that is in fact how it works (unless you hit the "hidden" link to the left).

Okay.

hyper_breasts implies huge breasts
huge_breasts implies big_breasts
big_breasts implies breasts

This means that a picture of:

• hyper_breasts has hyper_breasts huge_breasts big_breasts and breasts
• huge_breasts has huge_breasts big_breasts and breasts
• big_breasts has big_breasts and breasts

So, if you want big breasts, you search big_breasts -huge_breasts

searching -hyper_breasts -huge_breasts is redundant. EVERY hyper_breast image has huge_breasts on it. but not every huge_breasts image has hyper_breasts on it.

So, if you blacklist hyper_breasts, or hyper, then search huge_breasts, you will get ... all huge_breast images that are not tagged hyper. which would be the desired effect.

No, "and" even. I stated "to be that specific" for a reason: If you wanted ONLY big_breasts, and hyper and huge both implied big, then to see only big_breasts you'd need to exclude them both.

Naw, because you'd only need to exclude the next step up--huge. all hyper has huge on it.

this all also allows for some fuzzyness if tagging, though that hopefully won't be an issue. and once you figure it out, then you've got it figured out. and if you can't figure it out, then oh well.

also, the wiki page would describe this all, obviously. the implicatiosn page isn't the only way to see this info...

Ultima_Weapon said:
I don't see why huge_breasts should imply big_breasts if hyper_breasts already implies huge_breasts. I feel that big_breasts should imply breasts, and shouldn't be implied by anything.

as for this...

hyper breasts are big. Hyper breasts are also huge. Hyper breasts are also breasts. they are not average. They are not small.
Huge breasts are big. and they are also breasts. they are not average. They are not small.

O.o

Well... yeah... I think I followed all of that! xD
Thanks for the summary, SnowWolf!

Personally, I'll not make any input into the alias convo, since I have all three tags blacklisted.

SnowWolf said:
hyper breasts are big. Hyper breasts are also huge. Hyper breasts are also breasts. they are not average. They are not small.
Huge breasts are big. and they are also breasts. they are not average. They are not small.

So if someone wants to search for big_breasts only, they'll have to use -hyper_breasts -huge_breasts big_breasts, right?

To attempt to summarize other aspects of this forum, do we agree that 'flat_chest' will be folded into 'small_breasts'?

For the rest of the discussion, what qualifies as "big", "huge", and "hyper", here is what we currently have in Wiki:

big_breasts - "above average in size, but no bigger than the female's head"

huge_breasts - "...unusually large... Equal to or exceeds the bearer's head in size"

hyper_breasts - "hyper-endowed, and are unrealistically large, more than can be waved away with artistic licence"

Shall we stick with these descriptions, ignore the whole 'cup size' method, and direct posters to the appropriate pages in Wiki?

Ultima_Weapon said:
So if someone wants to search for big_breasts only, they'll have to use -hyper_breasts -huge_breasts big_breasts, right?

If I understand correctly, they would search big_breasts -huge_breasts (since hyper would be included under huge)

SnowWolf said:

Okay.

hyper_breasts implies huge breasts
huge_breasts implies big_breasts
big_breasts implies breasts

This means that a picture of:

• hyper_breasts has hyper_breasts huge_breasts big_breasts and breasts
• huge_breasts has huge_breasts big_breasts and breasts
• big_breasts has big_breasts and breasts

So, if you want big breasts, you search big_breasts -huge_breasts

searching -hyper_breasts -huge_breasts is redundant. EVERY hyper_breast image has huge_breasts on it. but not every huge_breasts image has hyper_breasts on it.

So, if you blacklist hyper_breasts, or hyper, then search huge_breasts, you will get ... all huge_breast images that are not tagged hyper. which would be the desired effect.

I explicitly laid out what I meant; apparently I need to repost it.
Someone searches big_breasts, they see hyper breasts, and so kneejerk reaction go -hyper_breasts. They still would get huge_breasts. At this point if they're that picky, they'd add -huge_breasts. This is a typical scenario for someone who knows how to -tag but doesn't follow the forums to know that all of a sudden everything s/he's known about how the breast tags work (that 'breasts' is the metatag, and each of the sizes are separate tags inside the metatag) is now tossed out and set to a "everything bigger references everything smaller until you hit the metatag", which is just counterintuitive.

To reiterate my point on the hyper_breasts/hyper/huge_breasts point, hyper_breasts and huge_breasts should both imply hyper. Hyper_breasts shouldn't imply huge_breasts. The size tags are effectively mini-orders of magnitude. As i stated 'if it applies Hyper', then blacklisting hyper would block huge_breasts. Thus a problem with my opinion regarding following the current size ratios used for determining breast size tags.

Naw, because you'd only need to exclude the next step up--huge. all hyper has huge on it.

this all also allows for some fuzzyness if tagging, though that hopefully won't be an issue. and once you figure it out, then you've got it figured out. and if you can't figure it out, then oh well.

also, the wiki page would describe this all, obviously. the implications page isn't the only way to see this info...

You took what I said out of context. Please read the entire paragraph. -.-

as for this...

hyper breasts are big. Hyper breasts are also huge. Hyper breasts are also breasts. they are not average. They are not small.
Huge breasts are big. and they are also breasts. they are not average. They are not small.

While this is technically correct, we've been using the sizes to differentiate between breast sizes, rather than to go "these breasts are hyper/huge/big/breasts." unless you can suggest a reasonable replacement for that that isn't counterintuitive or requires using negative tags every time for a -large- set of search parameters (breasts and their sizes being a huge number of tags) then this would just muddy things uop further.

DragonRI said:
To attempt to summarize other aspects of this forum, do we agree that 'flat_chest' will be folded into 'small_breasts'?

For the rest of the discussion, what qualifies as "big", "huge", and "hyper", here is what we currently have in Wiki:

big_breasts - "above average in size, but no bigger than the female's head"

huge_breasts - "...unusually large... Equal to or exceeds the bearer's head in size"

hyper_breasts - "hyper-endowed, and are unrealistically large, more than can be waved away with artistic licence"

Shall we stick with these descriptions, ignore the whole 'cup size' method, and direct posters to the appropriate pages in Wiki?

I'm pretty sure we've all agreed that flat_chest will be folded into small_breasts, but don't quote me on that.

As for the sizing, you've actually got it wrong. Wiki is, currently;

<b>Flat chest</b>: No breast mound; most commonly seen on underaged characters, in the cub category.
<b>Small breasts</b>: A to B cup sized breasts
<b>Big breasts</b>: D to F cup sized breasts
<b>Huge breasts</b>: G and up sized breasts; [used for the completely unrealistic mammaries seen in the hyper fetish.]

The part in brackets was added by TastesLikeGreen. I don't entirely agree with it (The completely unrealistic point, specifically).

And under the separate hyper_breasts tag page;

Breasts that have been hyper-endowed, and are unrealistically large, more than can be waved away with artistic licence.

In short, the huge_breasts tag is used for those that you look at and first thought is "No way those can be real!" or "Those tits are bigger than her head!" or "She had to have had surgery to get tits that big!" and similar, but there's that quality of doubt that is inherant in those style of thoughts on seeing those sized breasts (Or at least, that's how it seems to me). Hyper_breasts is used for those mammaries that you go "Psh, those are definitely fake, 100%" or "Holy shit look at those building-sized titties on that ten foot 'giantess'!" or "Ew, veiny tits bigger than she is..." and similar. Big_breasts are more than a handful, but not head-sized. Average_breasts (those that are legitimately just 'breasts' currently without additional size tags) are more the size that you can cup in a hand or both, and small tits range from 'flat chested' through to a handful (typical A cup and the like).

There have bee na number of replies, so I"m going to do this in my typical fasion of replying as I read s I don't forget my thoughts on anything... so partdon me if I get redudant...

Ultima_Weapon said:
So if someone wants to search for big_breasts only, they'll have to use -hyper_breasts -huge_breasts big_breasts, right?

ASDF no!

I just, like, explained that.

big_breasts -huge_breasts is all that is needed. Every hyper_breasts images will have huge_breasts on it. So, -huge_breasts will remove both hyper_breasts AND huge_breasts, leaving only big_breasts.

123easy said:
I explicitly laid out what I meant; apparently I need to repost it.

wow, what a bizarre coincidence, that's EXACTLY how I feel.

Someone searches big_breasts, they see hyper breasts, and so kneejerk reaction go -hyper_breasts. They still would get huge_breasts

Yep. That's how it works. That's because Huge is larger then Big, but not as large as hyper.

At this point if they're that picky, they'd add -huge_breasts. This is a typical scenario for someone who knows how to -tag but doesn't follow the forums to know that all of a sudden everything s/he's known about how the breast tags work (that 'breasts' is the metatag, and each of the sizes are separate tags inside the metatag) is now tossed out and set to a "everything bigger references everything smaller until you hit the metatag", which is just counterintuitive.

Okay. except this period of difficulty exists for only a few days, and the wiki pages are updated and everyone learns.

also:

let me spell it again

hyper breasts implies breasts.
hyper breasts implies huge breasts.
huge breasts implies breasts.
huge breasts implies big breasts.
big breasts implies breasts.
average_breasts implies breasts.
small/tiny breasts implies breasts.

So.. this:

all of a sudden everything s/he's known about how the breast tags work (that 'breasts' is the metatag, and each of the sizes are separate tags inside the metatag) is now tossed out

is completly wrong ;_; because breasts still IS a metatag.

"everything bigger references everything smaller until you hit the metatag", which is just counterintuitive.

No, it isn't.

Okay. Here you have green and blue. we only have a few shades of green, but we have dark blue. and we have navy blue. and many other colors also, but navy blue is clearly dark blue, and would be of note to someone looking for dark blue, becuase it is dark blue. It is also blue, even though it's navy blue because it's BLUE. just like dark blue is still blue. There are some shades of turquiose that are kind of confusing because they're blue green, but for the most part you have blue. and you have green.

keep in mind also that big and huge are not words that are numbers. peopel are going to come to the site and search "big_tits" or whatever and hope for the best. they need to learn about the system to understand that huge is larger then big. and that hyper is larger then huge. Seeing the tags over in the side bar clue them in.

To reiterate my point on the hyper_breasts/hyper/huge_breasts point, hyper_breasts and huge_breasts should both imply hyper.

You're the only one who thinks that huge_breasts are hyper. your arguement is dumb. if huge_breasts are hyper, then they're hyper_breasts, at which point, huge_breasts should be aliased to hyper_breasts, end of story, EXCEPT peopel don't like that and want a step between big and hyper, which we are calling huge. If breasts are large enough to be tagged hyper, then they are hyper breasts, not huge.

Hyper_breasts shouldn't imply huge_breasts.

Hyper breasts are huge. if you jsut want hyper breasts, search hyper_breasts. if you jsut want huge breasts, search huge_breasts -hyper_breasts. SIMPLE.

The size tags are effectively mini-orders of magnitude. As i stated 'if it applies Hyper', then blacklisting hyper would block huge_breasts. Thus a problem with my opinion regarding following the current size ratios used for determining breast size tags.

.... hyper is only applied to images where hyper_breasts are tagged. if an image has hyper_breasts tagged, then there are hyper_breasts in the image and hyper breasts should be tagged, and thus if hyper is blacklisted, then the iamge--containing hyper breasts--shoudl rightfully be invisible.

if an image is simply tagged huge breasts, hyper will not be added. If the breasts are huge, and not hyper, then adding hyper should be mistagged. Thus, hyper should not be on the image. Huge_breasts should. Thus.

In the situation where one likes huge_breasts, but dislikes and has blacklisted hyper, in the event of the user searching huge_breasts, they will see all images tagged huge_breasts (that is to say, images of huge breasts) while all hyper_breasts-tagged images are blacklisted, as they contain hyper-breasts.

In no way, shape, or form will blacklisting hyper block huge_breasts unless the images are mistagged.

You took what I said out of context. Please read the entire paragraph. -.-

*rereads... 5 times* No, I'm pretty sure I didn't. your complaint is that you'd need to subtract two things to remove larger-then-you-want breasts from a search. however, in truth, the efficient searching method only requires 1 negative tag to be searched for. hense.. not "and"--"or".

While this is technically correct, we've been using the sizes to differentiate between breast sizes, rather than to go "these breasts are hyper/huge/big/breasts."

except no one fucking GETS the current system.

Have a look at all the tags we have aliased into something else: big_boobs big_breas, big_tits, bigbreasts boob boobie boobies boobs breast breats busty enormous_breasts huge_boobs huge_tits large_breasts tits titties -- people type whatever the fuck they come up with while tagging. Most people don't go "hmm.. I'd better check the wiki." they come up with whatever visceral words surges to mind. "man, I love her HUGE_TITTIES" "gosh her SMALL TITS are delicious." "omg BOOB BOOB BOOB BOOBIE BOOBS BOOBS" ...

unless you can suggest a reasonable replacement for that that isn't counterintuitive or requires using negative tags every time for a -large- set of search parameters (breasts and their sizes being a huge number of tags) then this would just muddy things uop further.

*sigh*

The tag on the furthest side is the search term-- this is the desired result. No larger, no smaller. The words after the hyphen is the search term you would use.

• hyper_breasts - hyper_breasts
• huge_breasts - huge_breasts -hyper_breasts
• big_breasts - big_breasts -huge_breasts

That is not large.

hell, if you just want BOOBS of any sizes except, say, huge and above:

breasts -huge_breasts

I'm pretty sure we've all agreed that flat_chest will be folded into small_breasts, but don't quote me on that.[/quote[

quoted. :)

and I believe we agreed to SOMETHING like that. be it small_breasts or tiny_breastsor whatever.

[quote[ As for the sizing, you've actually got it wrong. Wiki is, currently;

<b>Flat chest</b>: No breast mound; most commonly seen on underaged characters, in the cub category.
<b>Small breasts</b>: A to B cup sized breasts
<b>Big breasts</b>: D to F cup sized breasts
<b>Huge breasts</b>: G and up sized breasts; [used for the completely unrealistic mammaries seen in the hyper fetish.]

big breasts says "above average in size, but no bigger then the female's head"

breasts has an overview which you have quoted. This page if you look it over, is old and rather outdated in general.

This page deserves a rewrite, which will be done when we determine what the new definitions should be.

And under the separate hyper_breasts tag page;

Breasts that have been hyper-endowed, and are unrealistically large, more than can be waved away with artistic licence.

Y'know.. I'm jsut saying.. if we redefine things, retag everything that needs to be retagged, and effectively rewrite what the tag is and means, we can rewrite the wikipage. jsut because someone back in 2008 thought that these were god ideas and good words DOESN'T MEAN that it matches up with what the site as it currently exists is, or should be.

In short, the huge_breasts tag is used for those that you look at and first thought is "No way those can be real!" or "Those tits are bigger than her head!" or "She had to have had surgery to get tits that big!" and similar, but there's that quality of doubt that is inherant in those style of thoughts on seeing those sized breasts (Or at least, that's how it seems to me). Hyper_breasts is used for those mammaries that you go "Psh, those are definitely fake, 100%" or "Holy shit look at those building-sized titties on that ten foot 'giantess'!" or "Ew, veiny tits bigger than she is..." and similar. Big_breasts are more than a handful, but not head-sized. Average_breasts (those that are legitimately just 'breasts' currently without additional size tags) are more the size that you can cup in a hand or both, and small tits range from 'flat chested' through to a handful (typical A cup and the like).

mmmkay. we mostly agree on this. as it stands. that's actually a pretty decent way of describing without numbers how sizes are defined (except some people have very skewed perspectives and think that DD's are small :( ) and all of these things can be pretty easily found with the proposed new system. plus it introduces people to some of the intracacies of the search ssytem and site.

SnowWolf Said:
your arguement is dumb

I'm done with this. Figure it out on your own.

123easy said:
I'm done with this. Figure it out on your own.

*sigh* I'm sorry, that statement was made in frustration (about this and many other things). and it was out of line.

But I still stand by the fact that huge_breasts are not hyper. if they should have the hyper tag on them, then they should by hyper_breasts. not huge_breasts+hyper.

While Wiki used to refer to cup sizes, when I copied and pasted 9 hours ago, cup sizes were NOT mentioned.

I don't know... it seems like the discussion has taken on a new tack again. That's why I was trying to focus things back on the subject of what makes a pair of breasts big, huge, or hyper, versus the implications. Don't get me wrong, that's part of things. But that's something that we could figure out and quickly adjust (yay mods!) after we fix the root issue.

DragonRI said:
While Wiki used to refer to cup sizes, when I copied and pasted 9 hours ago, cup sizes were NOT mentioned.

actualyl there is conflicting information. both of you are correct <3

I don't know... it seems like the discussion has taken on a new tack again. That's why I was trying to focus things back on the subject of what makes a pair of breasts big, huge, or hyper, versus the implications. Don't get me wrong, that's part of things. But that's something that we could figure out and quickly adjust (yay mods!) after we fix the root issue.

You have a good point <3

I honestly thinkwhat dragonRI quoted is a pretty good starting place.. but since we also hav average_breasts, now...

• Tiny/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.

Thanks for that clarification on my info compared with 123's. I didn't realize that there was a conflict somewhere in the system. <3

Personally, I'm fine with those descriptions. And... I didn't realize that the 'average_breasts' tag has been created! ^_^

Your thoughts Ultima? 123? (if you're popping in, hopefully)
or anyone else??? :)

well, I was thinkign we needed average also, didn't we? because there's a stage between big and small :) and if breasts is on EVERYTHING..?

I prefer small_breasts over tiny_breasts... I prefer flat_chested over those two but it'd be inconsistent with the rest. Everything else sounds fine, but I'm unsure about hyper/huge_breasts implying big_breasts. If people want big breasts, would they necessarily want hyper breasts? Sure they can -hyper_breasts, but...

Conversely.. if people want big breasts, would they want to have to search 3 different tags, if they don't care how big big is?

I think small_breasts is better than tiny_breasts, as tiny makes it sound like boobs shrunk down to micro size or something. Average_breasts also needs to be used as well. For everything else, my opinions are known.

SnowWolf said:
Conversely.. if people want big breasts, would they want to have to search 3 different tags, if they don't care how big big is?

Oops. Misread this.
We add the implications so people don't have to search three different tags.

Riversyde said:
We add the implications so people don't have to search three different tags.

I forgot to argue this. I was wondering what was going on.

Riversyde said:
Oops. Misread this.
We add the implications so people don't have to search three different tags.

riiiiiver. I was.. . durf. look at it in context, man. ._.

Valence said that, basically, people shouldn't have to search -hyper_breasts ti get their big_boob fix, and I replied with the fact that *as it currently stands* people who don't care what size the boobies they look at are have to search three separate tags in order to view all large_breasted images.

I was arguing our viewpoint -_-

SnowWolf said:
riiiiiver. I was.. . durf. look at it in context, man. ._.

Valence said that, basically, people shouldn't have to search -hyper_breasts ti get their big_boob fix, and I replied with the fact that *as it currently stands* people who don't care what size the boobies they look at are have to search three separate tags in order to view all large_breasted images.

I was arguing our viewpoint -_-

Durf indeed. But with all this discussion it's getting kinda hard to decipher who means what anymore. Snoooow, can't we just flex our mod muscles and get this over and done with?

Sounds good to me :D

let's see....

• flat_chest is aliased to small breasts
• tiny_breasts is aliased to small breasts
• small breasts implies breasts

• Average Breasts is created and populated.. somehow.
• average breasts implies breasts

• hyper_breasts implies huge breasts
• huge_breasts implies big_breasts
• big_breasts implies breasts

for clean up:

oversized_breasts is aliased to hyper_breasts

now, what retagging to we need to do? do we need to?

I dare say it might be easier to tag average_breasts after.. searching breasts -small_breasts -big_breasts and sorting out the remainder...

the big/huge/hyper area has some size overlap in pictures but that seems like ti wouldn't be too hard to fix after implicating...?

I don't really see why we need average_breasts, but if it improves searchability, I'm all for it. Other than that, I have no problems with anything here.

Riversyde said:
I don't really see why we need average_breasts, but if it improves searchability, I'm all for it. Other than that, I have no problems with anything here.

well.. what if you just want normally sized boobies? not all are small or large, after all. right now, those are mostly jsut covered by "breasts".... so, yeah.

off to the implication lands~~

SnowWolf said:
well.. what if you just want normally sized boobies? not all are small or large, after all. right now, those are mostly jsut covered by "breasts".... so, yeah.

off to the implication lands~~

Well, yeah, I was using breasts for average breasts in the first place. But still, I told you you'd get another chance for this :)

but breasts is now 'meta tag' XD

but yeah XD

also, done~~ :D :D :D

SnowWolf said:
but breasts is now 'meta tag' XD

but yeah XD

also, done~~ :D :D :D

Yay~

So, like, we need wiki pages to be adjusted (both breasts and each individual boob size... the page on breasts should also include an "idiots" cheat sheet for isolating breast sizes via search.)

as well as average breasts to be taggd <3

SnowWolf said:
well, I was thinkign we needed average also, didn't we? because there's a stage between big and small :) and if breasts is on EVERYTHING..?

I totally agree! :)

Riversyde said:
Durf indeed. But with all this discussion it's getting kinda hard to decipher who means what anymore. Snoooow, can't we just flex our mod muscles and get this over and done with?

AMEN! :D

So back to the basics... how do we describe big, huge, and hyper breasts? Should we keep the current Wiki descriptions? (which work fine, imo)

I'm all for pitching in on the small and average sizes. I could also tag others to "big", but then someone else might want to sort out the big, huge, and hyper lists. I'd hate to create work but just using "big" as a dumping ground.

Who's in?!? ^^

I proposed:

• Tiny/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 already changed the breasts wiki a bit last night, feel free to change it if you disagree with what I put down.

SnowWolf said:
I proposed:

• Tiny/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.

Works for me! ^^