Topic: [APPROVED] Slightly chubby sexes BUR

The bulk update request #1199 is active.

In light of the approval of topic #34141, I have updated this BUR to reverse my previous position and establish aliases in favour of the slightly_chubby_* tags. Currently the chubby_* tags still have far more usage, and have no implications set up. For example, at the time of writing, chubby_female has 6687 posts, but slightly_chubby_female has only 293.

I have also fixed two omissions from the aforementioned BUR: the missing aliases for legacy terms for intersex characters, and the missing implications for slightly chubby herms and maleherms.

topic #28871 must be rejected before this BUR can be approved.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1199 (forum #315004) has been approved by @slyroon.

I still don't think chubby tags should be aliased to slight_chubby. Too many not-slightly chubby characters are getting tagged as only slightly_chubby, in part because chubby is aliased to it, so having chubby_male/female/etc implicate slightly_chubby will make the mistagging worse.

Also, I don't think overweight_semi-anthro and chubby_semi-anthro should be tags. The semi-anthro tag is an supplemental tag that should be used with anthro or feral, so such posts should have a overweight_anthro/chubby_anthro or overweight_feral/chubby_feral tag already, where only semi-anthro is needed.

Update: Discovered some users have been using slightly_chubby_* instead of chubby_*, so added aliases from the former to the latter. These could be reversed if there is a consensus in favour of enforcing consistency with the parent slightly_chubby tag, but at present the chubby_* tags have far more posts.

This looks good overall, though a few edits should be made to this BUR.

• The implication chubby_maleherm -> chubby_herm should instead be chubby_maleherm -> chubby_intersex, since both maleherm and herm each imply intersex (but both tags remain separate from each other, so maleherm doesn't imply herm).
• The implication overweight_maleherm -> overweight_herm and the removal request for the implication overweight_maleherm -> overweight_intersex should also be removed from the BUR for the same aforementioned reason.

watsit said:
I still don't think chubby tags should be aliased to slight_chubby. Too many not-slightly chubby characters are getting tagged as only slightly_chubby, in part because chubby is aliased to it, so having chubby_male/female/etc implicate slightly_chubby will make the mistagging worse.

Also, I don't think overweight_semi-anthro and chubby_semi-anthro should be tags. The semi-anthro tag is an supplemental tag that should be used with anthro or feral, so such posts should have a overweight_anthro/chubby_anthro or overweight_feral/chubby_feral tag already, where only semi-anthro is needed.

^ Agreed with this, chubby is an ambiguous term and it complicates tagging. I think slightly_chubby_x would be the only way to accurately tag them.

OK, I've removed the maleherm -> herm lines, as it looks like the overweight_maleherm wiki page was in error.

As for the chubby_* versus slightly_chubby_* issue, this is where a poll feature would be useful. I went with chubby_* because those tags are currently used on far more posts, but it's possible there's a case for aliasing them for the same reasons chubby was aliased in the first place. Should I just create a duplicate BUR with the aliases reversed and see which one garners more upvotes?

In light of the approval of topic #34141, I have updated this BUR to reverse my previous position and establish aliases in favour of the slightly_chubby_* tags. Currently the chubby_* tags still have far more usage, and have no implications set up. For example, at the time of writing, chubby_female has 6687 posts, but slightly_chubby_female has only 293.

I have also fixed two omissions from the aforementioned BUR: the missing aliases for legacy terms for intersex characters, and the missing implications for slightly chubby herms and maleherms.

topic #28871 must be rejected before this BUR can be approved.

Still awaiting a consensus on what to do with chubby_semi-anthro.

wat8548 said:
In light of the approval of topic #34141, I have updated this BUR to reverse my previous position and establish aliases in favour of the slightly_chubby_* tags. Currently the chubby_* tags still have far more usage, and have no implications set up. For example, at the time of writing, chubby_female has 6687 posts, but slightly_chubby_female has only 293.

I have also fixed two omissions from the aforementioned BUR: the missing aliases for legacy terms for intersex characters, and the missing implications for slightly chubby herms and maleherms.

topic #28871 must be rejected before this BUR can be approved.

Still awaiting a consensus on what to do with chubby_semi-anthro.

looks good!

I would personally ignore chubby_semi-anthro or alias it away. Semi-anthro should not get descriptive tags of its own, it's just an in-between tag for characters close to the anthro/feral split.

abstractedtown said:
looks good!

I would personally ignore chubby_semi-anthro or alias it away. Semi-anthro should not get descriptive tags of its own, it's just an in-between tag for characters close to the anthro/feral split.

Perhaps alias it to slightly chubby.

Minor update: the intersex subtags did not previously imply the umbrella tag. Also, andromorph and gynomorph had redundant direct implications to slightly_chubby, which is now handled via slightly_chubby_intersex.

people keep uploading pictures using only chubby_[sex] tags which makes it so the posts don't show up when putting any of slightly_chubby, chubby, or overweight in the search bar

bumping this, sentiment towards the BUR seems good

Bump.
Dealing with chubby_male and chubby_female is really a long time coming.
The latter has over 13k posts and counting as I've seen some users going out of their way to tag as many posts as possible with it. And yet the tags still have no wiki entry because they're vague, redundant tags that shouldn't exist.

Although, I have to raise an issue with the BUR. While chubby is currently aliased to slightly_chubby, it really should be aliased to overweight, as this is clearly what people use that term for, as seen with many, many posts currently tagged chubby_male/chubby_female. The original chubby tag needed the "slightly" specification to be added for a reason.
Watsit said it best in the first reply, going for slightly_chubby_* will create a wave of mistags.

I'm not sure about that. Far too many slightly chubby characters are tagged obese or overweight. I don't think a majority of taggers have ever seen a truly obese person. Overweight tag is overused, and it loses meaning. We need several tags describing weight and clear definitions in the tag wiki to ensure proper tagging.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
I'm not sure about that. Far too many slightly chubby characters are tagged obese or overweight. I don't think a majority of taggers have ever seen a truly obese person. Overweight tag is overused, and it loses meaning. We need several tags describing weight and clear definitions in the tag wiki to ensure proper tagging.

We do have several tags describing weight (obese, morbidly obese), but the problem is making it clear. The problem lies in the fact that overweight is both somewhat subjective, but it also depends on what the "normal" size (for that character/species?) is supposed to be

I wish to contribute to this linking to my post back 10 months ago, involving scales between three axis of chubby, muscular and skinny.

topic #36591

I was proposing athletic to be the zero-point, although nowadays I think slim would be more proper. The three axis of the scale would then go:

slim - slightly_chubby - overweight - obese - morbidly_obese
slim - skinny - anorexia
slim - athletic - muscular

There is no chubby in the scale, as it has no proper definition, unlike slightly_chubby and overweight and others. This scale should be similar to what we have for breast sizes, apart from it going into three possible directions from slim.

If you look at my original post in that other topic there, you note that indeed I have here transferred the zero-point to slim, and also now omitting big/huge/hyper_muscles from the scale, considering them rather a sub-category under muscular, but this muscularity thing is just something I just now thought of, because of the phrasing of the tags referring more to the muscles rather than to the bodytype, (otherwise it should be hugely_muscular rather than huge_muscles) so I'm all for more insights and discussion.

Yet, to conclude, I really don't see a place for chubby there between slightly chubby and overweight. I see that clearly the word exists, is used, and would indicate something perhaps between slightly chubby and overweight, but perhaps it IS just a synonym of overweight. If it's not, then what is the defining distinction between all three?

snpthecat said:
We do have several tags describing weight (obese, morbidly obese), but the problem is making it clear. The problem lies in the fact that overweight is both somewhat subjective, but it also depends on what the "normal" size (for that character/species?) is supposed to be

It is indeed somewhat subjective, but so is the breast size scale, and I think we have quite a good scale there with definitions in place. I do note that small_breasts is suffering most from subjectivity, where some people take into consideration real life breast sizes, whereas others consider cartoon and porn breasts. The normal breast size in the latter is much bigger than the former. But I think we have as good definitions on the breasts wiki page as we can.

And also, in breasts, the scale suits poorly for feral characters and anthros closer to feral than humanoid here. I think I could evaluate what would be an overweight cat, but I would fail for a xenomorph and insects, for example. However, we have here a furry imageboard, and great majority of furries are quite humanoid anthromorphs. These tags are also not obligatory to all characters. Only for those whom they fit. I don't think they fit Pikachu or Pacman unless anthropomorphisized.

The bulk update request #1199 (forum #315004) has been approved by @slyroon.