Topic: [REJECTED] Tag alias: teapot_(body_type) -> short_stack

The tag alias #65076 teapot_(body_type) -> shortstack has been rejected.

Reason: It's clear to me that teapot_(body_type) isn't much more than a combination tag of male + short_stack. "Short stack" on its own doesn't need to be a gendered term, since it's just describing a body type. There was no reason for such a distinction to be made. No equivalent gendered terms exist for other sexes, nor has there ever needed to be.

EDIT: The tag alias teapot_(body_type) -> short_stack (forum #383148) has been rejected by @furrypickle.

dosn't short_stack specifically mean a character is "short" and "stacked" i.e. has tits?

onefattycatty said:
No equivalent gendered terms exist for other sexes, nor has there ever needed to be.

just going by tags that don't explicitly contain genders in their tagnames there is loli/shota (and oppai_loli) and also girly/tomboy (although those are more inverses of each other). but there's also a shit tonne of explicitly gendered "figure" tags, athletic_*, muscular_*, overweight_*, etc.

sipothac said:
just going by tags that don't explicitly contain genders in their tagnames there is loli/shota (and oppai_loli) and also girly/tomboy

Four famously uncontroversial tags, there.

Previous discussion of male short stacks in this thread: topic #34500

I'm not really convinced this helps anybody, is there an actual problem here with two tags existing? People searching for short_stack will be looking for female characters, as is the accepted meaning of the word. Having to instead search for something along the lines of short_stack female -male_focus isn't exactly intuitive.

faucet said:
People searching for short_stack will be looking for female characters, as is the accepted meaning of the word.

...is it?

strikerman said:
...is it?

I'm pretty sure "short stack" almost exclusively refers to females, yes.

vulpes_artifex said:
I'm pretty sure "short stack" almost exclusively refers to females, yes.

Wiktionary, definition #4:

(colloquial) A person with a short, stout build.

Previous versions of the wiki page prior to a rewrite by maplebytes also don't explicitly exclude males and maleherms from the definition of the tag; rather, it says that a short stack is "typically female", rather than absolutely. There are also still a phenomenal 1,820 posts in the search term short_stack ~male ~maleherm -female -gynomorph -herm -ambiguous_gender, so a presumed end-all-be-all definition that refers exclusively to feminine characters doesn't reflect how the tag is actually used. As with many Internet slang terms, the definition and usage is subject to change from person to person.

Frankly I don't see the point in this alias at all, there's a clear need for a tag to define a, for lack of a better word, "male short stack" that is separate from a female or gynomorphic short stack:

• the overwhelming majority of posts tagged male short_stack feature a male character of normal stature interacting with a female character who is a shortstack, your search specifying male or maleherm "shortstacks" might result in a "phenomenal" 1.8k posts, but male short_stack has a massive 12.3k posts, even when combining the teapot tag in, with its 2000 posts (some double tagged as short_stack) would make finding such characters far harder for no benefit
• Without teapot (body type) there is no way to define a "short stack male" who isn't in a solo or male/male scene
• This alias only makes the recreation/repopulation of the male_short_stackand short_stack_male tags inevitable, which if your goal is to unite all stout curvy characters under a single banner regardless of sex, it's not going to work out

Sipothac makes a good point that there are absolutely equivalent gendered tags, and Faucet sums up exactly my thinking, who is this helping?

maplebytes said:
Frankly I don't see the point in this alias at all, there's a clear need for a tag to define a, for lack of a better word, "male short stack" that is separate from a female or gynomorphic short stack:

Why should male short stacks be defined as a completely different body type? The term "short stack" is more or less universally accepted for this purpose; I have yet to encounter "teapot" outside of e621.

• the overwhelming majority of posts tagged male short_stack feature a male character of normal stature interacting with a female character who is a shortstack, your search specifying male or maleherm "shortstacks" might result in a "phenomenal" 1.8k posts, but male short_stack has a massive 12.3k posts, even when combining the teapot tag in, with its 2000 posts (some double tagged as short_stack) would make finding such characters far harder for no benefit

Yes, of course they will, because all you're going to find in that search is images that contain both short stack and male characters. You have to get more granular to find exactly what you're looking for. We actually want to encourage people to use the search function to find the exact things they want, rather than taking shortcuts.
My tag search was intended specficially to point out the exceptions to the norm that your own wiki edits created.

• Without teapot (body type) there is no way to define a "short stack male" who isn't in a solo or male/male scene

Yes, there is. It's the short_stack_male tag that I am assuming you don't find preferable. The same tagging could be applied to other sexes, and this is actually a great thing because as it is, there is no way to specifically search for intersex short stacks of any type besides constructing a search query that excludes everything else. Likewise, people who don't want to see intersex short stacks can either exclude the terms from their search or blacklist them. You have females, gynomorphs, and herms lumped into the same body type tag without distinction; how is that not a mess? This is the exact kind of unintuitive search faucet pointed out, but apparently it's only a problem if we let the male short stacks share the short_stack tag?
Treating it as a gender-neutral body type sounds more sensical to me than having two completely different tags whose only distinction is the sex/gender of the subject. Just because a given theme is in a minority of search results doesn't mean it needs to be excluded for being an outlier.

• This alias only makes the recreation/repopulation of the male_short_stack and short_stack_male tags inevitable, which if your goal is to unite all stout curvy characters under a single banner regardless of sex, it's not going to work out

Sipothac makes a good point that there are absolutely equivalent gendered tags, and Faucet sums up exactly my thinking, who is this helping?

Sipothac said:
but there's also a shit tonne of explicitly gendered "figure" tags, athletic_*, muscular_*, overweight_*, etc.

This is part of the point of making short_stack gender neutral. Other body types can have the same [body type]_[sex] combination tags that Sipothac pointed out. Since "short stack" is describing a body type, why should it be treated any differently? Like, arguably the only thing separating a gynomorph short stack from a male "teapot" is the presence of breasts. Having a tagging dichotomy that enforces binary gender while ignoring the in-betweens completely falls apart when you include said in-betweens.

I have yet to encounter "teapot" outside of e621.

I've seen it on Twitter and Furaffinity, and it's apparently a tag on Itaku. It's definitely not as widespread as "shortstack" (why is the tag spaced anyways, it's so awkward looking).

In any case, what it sounds like you're arguing is that "short_stack" should be gender neutral, which would mean you should instead be aliasing teapot_(body_type) to male_short_stack which in turn should be implicated to short_stack, not aliasing teapot_(body_type) to short_stack.

As long as it remains a searchable subcategory that's all that matters to me, personally, I just don't want it to go back to where there was a smattering of similar (currently defunct) tags all trying to define what teapot_(body_type) covers.

The tag alias teapot_(body_type) -> short_stack (forum #383148) has been rejected by @furrypickle.

After discussing this in staff chats, we have settled on a few things.

The bulk update request #12884 is active.

remove alias shortstack (57396) -> short_stack (8)
remove alias short-stack (0) -> short_stack (8)
remove alias short_stack_gynomorph (0) -> short_stack (8)
remove alias shortstacked (0) -> short_stack (8)

Reason: step one

EDIT: The bulk update request #12884 (forum #476077) has been approved by @furrypickle.

The bulk update request #12884 (forum #476077) has been approved by @furrypickle.

The bulk update request #12885 is active.

create alias short_stack (8) -> shortstack (57396)
create alias short-stack (0) -> shortstack (57396)
create alias shortstacked (0) -> shortstack (57396)

Reason: step two

EDIT: The bulk update request #12885 (forum #476080) has been approved by @furrypickle.

The bulk update request #12885 (forum #476080) has been approved by @furrypickle.

The bulk update request #12886 is active.

create alias teapot_(body_type) (0) -> shortstack_male (5337)
create implication shortstack_male (5337) -> shortstack (57396)
create implication shortstack_female (3582) -> shortstack (57396)
create implication shortstack_intersex (99) -> shortstack (57396)
create implication shortstack_gynomorph (92) -> shortstack_intersex (99)
create implication shortstack_andromorph (2) -> shortstack_intersex (99)

Reason: and now this part

EDIT: The bulk update request #12886 (forum #476082) has been approved by @furrypickle.

The bulk update request #12886 (forum #476082) has been approved by @furrypickle.

The bulk update request #12887 is active.

create implication shortstack_male (5337) -> male (2996479)
create implication shortstack_female (3582) -> female (2997527)
create implication shortstack_gynomorph (92) -> gynomorph (233160)
create implication shortstack_andromorph (2) -> andromorph (29577)
create implication shortstack_intersex (99) -> intersex (298091)

Reason: a few loose ends

EDIT: The bulk update request #12887 (forum #476093) has been approved by @furrypickle.

The bulk update request #12887 (forum #476093) has been approved by @furrypickle.

The bulk update request #12994 is pending approval.

remove alias shortstackification (1) -> short_stackification (476)

Reason: One more loose end.

Follow-up:

alias short_stackification -> shortstackification
imply shortstackification -> transformation
imply shortstackification -> shortstack