The bulk update request #14 has been rejected.

create alias chubby_male (2) -> overweight_male (122486)
create alias chubby_female (4) -> overweight_female (55877)

Reason: Chubby is synonymous with overweight.

Additionally, it's probably a good idea to also alias chubby_gynomorph -> overweight_gynomorph, which I can't ask for in the script because it doesn't allow aliasing for tags with <50 submissions.

EDIT: The bulk update request #14 (forum #287571) has been rejected by @Millcore.

komuros said:
Reason: Chubby is synonymous with overweight.

No. It is not. Neither in terms of tag usage, nor in terms of the definitions of the words.

is already aliased to slightly_chubby

so shouldn't it be chubby_female → slightly_chubby_female, etc. ?

Honestly, having seen the slightly_chubby tag on literally dozens of characters that would be reasonably classified as vastly overweight, I don't think this suggestion is entirely off-base. I think there's a little more nuance needed than what's reflected in the recommendation, but our tagging definitions as they currently stand reflect a serious inability or unwillingness to call an obese figure what it is.

ccoyote said:
Honestly, having seen the slightly_chubby tag on literally dozens of characters that would be reasonably classified as vastly overweight, I don't think this suggestion isn't entirely off-base. I think there's a little more nuance needed than what's reflected in the recommendation, but our tagging definitions as they currently stand reflect a serious inability or unwillingness to call an obese figure what it is.

That's certainly a long-running problem that goes deeper than this. If I recall correctly, slightly_chubby started because people were tagging overweight characters as just chubby, so it was aliased to mitigate it.
But people just kept tagging chubby anyway because the average uploader doesn't really care for the distinction and doesn't read wikis. It doesn't help that there's some kind of drive within fans of overweight content to under-evaluate the weight-type of characters, also notably seen in browsers of the larger breast size tags.
I've always assumed it's just one of those issues that's both too widespread and trivial to really crack down on with the site's limited moderation resources.

ccoyote said:
Honestly, having seen the slightly_chubby tag on literally dozens of characters that would be reasonably classified as vastly overweight, I don't think this suggestion isn't entirely off-base. I think there's a little more nuance needed than what's reflected in the recommendation, but our tagging definitions as they currently stand reflect a serious inability or unwillingness to call an obese figure what it is.

Actually, our tagging definitions as they currently stand say that posts like you are describing have simply been tagged incorrectly.

magnuseffect said:
It doesn't help that there's some kind of drive within fans of overweight content to under-evaluate the weight-type of characters, also notably seen in browsers of the larger breast size tags.
I've always assumed it's just one of those issues that's both too widespread and trivial to really crack down on with the site's limited moderation resources.

I agree with every point you've made, but what frustrates me is that I genuinely don't mind slightly chubby figures, but because I don't blacklist that, I keep getting stuck looking at things I don't want to see. For me, it being so widespread is exactly what makes this so problematic and not trivial.

jacob said:
Actually, our tagging definitions as they currently stand say that posts like you are describing have simply been tagged incorrectly.

Yes, and there is a massive amount of them. I don't foresee admin cracking down on the bad tagging. I'm not sure what to do.

ccoyote said:
Honestly, having seen the slightly_chubby tag on literally dozens of characters that would be reasonably classified as vastly overweight, I don't think this suggestion isn't entirely off-base. I think there's a little more nuance needed than what's reflected in the recommendation, but our tagging definitions as they currently stand reflect a serious inability or unwillingness to call an obese figure what it is.

Certainly. For myself, a few posts I've uploaded have had chubby characters; certainly more than slightly chubby, but perhaps not quite overweight (and what constitutes overweight or obese may be difficult to define, given creatures like charizard or tyranitar whose normal weight has a fair amount of body bulk to start with, or a critter with a good bit of floof that hides just how much weightier they may be). So some posts I tagged as chubby because it was more than a slight amount of chubbiness, only to find it got replaced with the incorrect slightly_chubby tag anyway.

So, in my opinion, chubby should at least be de-aliased from slightly_chubby. Beyond that, the proposed chubby -> overweight alias can go either way.

ccoyote said:
Honestly, having seen the slightly_chubby tag on literally dozens of characters that would be reasonably classified as vastly overweight, I don't think this suggestion isn't entirely off-base. I think there's a little more nuance needed than what's reflected in the recommendation, but our tagging definitions as they currently stand reflect a serious inability or unwillingness to call an obese figure what it is.

magnuseffect said:
That's certainly a long-running problem that goes deeper than this. If I recall correctly, slightly_chubby started because people were tagging overweight characters as just chubby, so it was aliased to mitigate it.
But people just kept tagging chubby anyway because the average uploader doesn't really care for the distinction and doesn't read wikis. It doesn't help that there's some kind of drive within fans of overweight content to under-evaluate the weight-type of characters, also notably seen in browsers of the larger breast size tags.

All good points.

I originally proposed these aliases because I figured that since we had slightly_chubby, then "chubby" would be a step above that, and we've defined that step in the tagging system as "overweight". I still feel like something ought to be done about the chubby_* tags, but I'm not sure exactly what at this point, given the aforementioned issues with properly tagging weight. Maybe as a starting point, it'd be better to alias chubby to something like chubby_(disambiguation) and then leave people that know how to tag to sort it out.

ccoyote said:
Yes, and there is a massive amount of them. I don't foresee admin cracking down on the bad tagging. I'm not sure what to do.

My point, was that your first post in this thread gave the impression you thought the posts were tagged correctly according to the rules, and it was the rules that needed to change. I was saying that his was incorrect. If I simply misread that post, then that was my bad.

(Bumping this since it came up on Discord.)

magnuseffect said:
I've always assumed it's just one of those issues that's both too widespread and trivial to really crack down on with the site's limited moderation resources.

That's how I see it. Chubby was a complete mess before the alias. Now it's still messy, but nowhere near as bad as it used to be.

Perhaps changing the implication to chubby -> chubby_(disambiguation) would result in even less of a mess. But I don't have much faith in that, considering this.

ccoyote said:
Yes, and there is a massive amount of them. I don't foresee admin cracking down on the bad tagging. I'm not sure what to do.

If you see someone mistagging it frequently, report them. But a lot of those (like many other mistags) are one-offs from new users who aren't yet used to tagging, there's not much that can be done about that.

i thought this was going to be about the difference of overweight and landwhale

ccoyote said:
Honestly, having seen the slightly_chubby tag on literally dozens of characters that would be reasonably classified as vastly overweight, I don't think this suggestion is entirely off-base. I think there's a little more nuance needed than what's reflected in the recommendation, but our tagging definitions as they currently stand reflect a serious inability or unwillingness to call an obese figure what it is.

We gotta keep on re-tagging these correctly, young yotl; I just passed 16K edits fixing shit that slips past my blacklist.

If memory holds from Back in the Olden Tymes, parasprite aliased "chubby" to "slightly_chubby" for more clarity as overweight and obese characters were frequently being mis-tagged. Hang-ups in the fandom, go fig.

I'm with Genjar: while a mess, the slightly_* is still less a mess.

The bulk update request #14 (forum #287571) has been rejected by @Millcore.