The tag alias #72304 medium_breasts -> breasts is pending approval.

Reason: We do not separately tag anatomical feature size for average/medium/middle/center/normal/regular/normative/standard/things between small & big,short & long, thin & thick, micro & macro, eta... the root feature tag(breasts in this alias case) serves the purpose of covering 'medium' sized.

Also medium_breasts tag still relies on arbitrary cup sizes, and color or line styles are not proper descriptors. What this tag seeks to cover is better reserved to sets.

Additionally, users supposibly being lazy and just not tagging the size at all is not a legitimate reason for making a tag that covers things between small & big, we do not do that for other bodyparts, I maintain that there is no reason for this exception and the wiki does not justify its existence.

Simply not wanting your work to go to waste is also not legitimate reason for keeping a tag.

I will add other medium size tags are regularly cleared out by staff or privileged users.

This was prior discussion on the tag topic #25334

The bulk update request #9243 is pending approval.

create alias medium_hair (2707) -> hair (1716673)
create alias medium_length_hair (55) -> hair (1716673)
create alias medium_butt (19) -> butt (986494)
create alias medium_mane (11) -> mane (47825)
create alias medium_abdomen (5) -> invalid_tag (0)
create alias medium_tail (73) -> tail (1321682)
create alias medium_penis (2) -> penis (1512966)
create alias medium_breats (0) -> breasts (1697178)
create alias medium_brests (0) -> breasts (1697178)
create alias average_penis (693) -> penis (1512966)
create alias average_balls (10) -> balls (1031890)
create alias average_breast (0) -> breasts (1697178)
create alias normal_breasts (0) -> breasts (1697178)
create alias normal_size_breasts (0) -> breasts (1697178)
create alias normal_sized (0) -> invalid_tag (0)
create alias normal_sized_penis (0) -> penis (1512966)

Reason: same reason as above, we do not use separate tags for the median between big & small, long & short, thin & thick, and so on.

i feel like medium_hair might be the exception, because their is no such thing as "average length hair"

manitka said:
i feel like medium_hair might be the exception, because their is no such thing as "average length hair"

A average exists on the basis that we are capable of separating hair as short_hair and long_hair. To define what is long, short, thick, thin, big, small and so on, a average is logically necessary(in the same way shadows cannot exist without light) and the root feature tag covers that.

hair just means they have hair, i feel like medium length hair is an actual descriptor for hair length.

but hey i'm just voicing an opinion, everything else in the bur i agree with!

manitka said:
hair just means they have hair, i feel like medium length hair is an actual descriptor for hair length.

but hey i'm just voicing an opinion, everything else in the bur i agree with!

For our tagging purposes the cutoff is the shoulders: below the shoulders is long_hair, above them is short_hair. We could perhaps have a shoulder_length_hair (or a better name) tag for in between. But "medium length" would be way too ambiguous a name for that, imo

wandering_spaniel said:
For our tagging purposes the cutoff is the shoulders: below the shoulders is long_hair, above them is short_hair. We could perhaps have a shoulder_length_hair (or a better name) tag for in between. But "medium length" would be way too ambiguous a name for that, imo

i think moving medium_length_hair to shoulder_length_hair would be a good compromise!

I understand the reasoning but then we would have the add at least 6 other new tags(buzzcut hair, pixie length hair, neck length hair, waist length hair, thigh length hair, floor length hair) probably more to be consistent and they would then have to all be implicated to ether short hair or long hair to be useful in searches. basically establishing a new more complicated system just for hair.

These are bound to be asked for if a shoulder length hair tag is permitted for active usage.

ryu_deacon said:
I understand the reasoning but then we would have the add at least 6 other new tags(buzzcut hair, pixie length hair, neck length hair, waist length hair, thigh length hair, floor length hair) probably more to be consistent and they would then have to all be implicated to ether short hair or long hair to be useful in searches. basically establishing a new more complicated system just for hair.

These are bound to be asked for if a shoulder length hair tag is permitted for active usage.

I'd be fine with keeping it to just short_hair and long_hair too. Perhaps long_hair is shoulders and below, inclusive of shoulder length

My problem with this is people will tag "breasts" and be too lazy to add "large" or "small". But I guess you can't really fix stupid. People are always going to do weird stuff like that.

I thought breasts was supposed to work like the tags that you never should tag itself, but is used so that people don't have to include complex terms like ~small_breasts ~big_breasts (in this example, since huge and hyper imply the big tag).

alphamule said:
My problem with this is people will tag "breasts" and be too lazy to add "large" or "small". But I guess you can't really fix stupid. People are always going to do weird stuff like that.

Different people use different frames of reference. Breasts in porn tend to be larger than breasts in SFW images, for example, so some people may see somewhat larger breasts as "normal" (neither small or large) in comparison to other adult images. While people that prefer smaller more natural breasts may see smaller breasts as normal size. We also deal with hand-drawn art most of the time, which won't have the best grasp on anatomy, so can appear to some people as smaller or larger than other people depending on various factors like clothing detail and attempted perspective. Since we can't physically measure breasts, we can't say where exactly the line is, so different people will have different conclusions (I thought the wiki even said something to that effect, that sizing breasts in artwork isn't an exact science and is going to have subjectivity, so long as the tag isn't obviously wrong it's fine). This is also why I was against adding the medium_breasts tag in the first place. It's one thing to be unsure if breasts are large or huge, since huge_breasts will imply large_breasts (if you search large_breasts you will still get huge_breasts too), but small/medium/large are exclusive of each other and cover all sizes of breasts (any visible pair of breasts must be one of the three). It tries to add precision and nuance where it's not really possible, where the distinction is too vague.