The bulk update request #9648 is pending approval.

create alias skinny (7593) -> slim (29362)
create implication emaciated (473) -> slim (29362)

Reason: There doesn't seem to be much difference between skinny and slim, so I don't know what point there is in keeping both.

Also, emaciated seems to be en extrem version of slim/skinny.

they seem to include similar things but they are intended to cover different things.

skinny is intended to cover actual narrow bodies regardless of physique(obese/muscular/athletic),
while slim is supposed to just cover a average body that can nether feature any form of muscle tone or distinctive fat.

Also the wiki for slim seems intent on excluding emaciated(anorexia is one disease that can cause this and is referenced in the wiki)

I would argue that slim specifically is a invalid tag because it is intended to cover literally everything that is not athletic/muscular or obese.

ryu_deacon said:
...

I would argue that slim specifically is a invalid tag because it is intended to cover literally everything that is not athletic/muscular or obese.

I mean, there are so many body type tags that trying to find characters that are the "standard" body type by excluding all the others seems impractical. So it's kind of like the gender tags, in that there's no way to have a neutral one outside of "ambiguous", so all posts should have them.

Personally I'd lean towards either aliasing slim to skinny or invalidating it. Skinny has connotations that suggest something more extreme than "not muscular or fat."

The problem imo with making an 'average' tag and making sure all images have body type tags, no matter what it's called, is that body shapes are too diverse to accurately label them all while still keeping things manageable. Ferals are already a Problem with twys gender tags, it'd be an absolute nightmare for body types.

-1 to making emaciated imply slim (or skinny if they change the direction).

Edit: It only works for overweight because the name has connotations that it covers everything over a certain weight. Whilst skinny/slim usually is a range that doesn't cover emaciated

I'll be fine if there was something like underweight though and had emaciated imply it

snpthecat said:
-1 to making emaciated imply slim (or skinny if they change the direction)

Any reason? It seems like if morbidly_obese implies overweight that the reverse situation should also apply. Especially since the wiki for emaciated explicitly includes extremely skinny characters that don't show visual cues of being emaciated.

Not sure if it's just me, but here's how I see it:

morbidly_obese
obese
overweight
slightly_chubby
athletic
slim
skinny
emaciated

Have slim, skinny, and emaciated imply underweight. Like how obese and morbidly_obese implies overweight

thehuskyk9 said:
Have slim, skinny, and emaciated imply underweight. Like how obese and morbidly_obese implies overweight

I wouldn't personally consider slim to be underweight in that ranking. In fact, that could be how we tell slim from skinny. The latter is underweight, but the former isn't. Wherever the dividing line is.

clawstripe said:
I wouldn't personally consider slim to be underweight in that ranking. In fact, that could be how we tell slim from skinny. The latter is underweight, but the former isn't. Wherever the dividing line is.

Slim is kind of the odd one out here. I don't think there's a great need for an "all middle sliders" body type tag.

I think "slim" would make for a good umbrella term for any body type below lightly_chubby, rather than the name for a perfect average that doesn't exists

granted: that could just make the confusion between slim and skinny even more dangerous

clawstripe said:
I wouldn't personally consider slim to be underweight in that ranking. In fact, that could be how we tell slim from skinny. The latter is underweight, but the former isn't. Wherever the dividing line is.

I'd be cool with that too tbh, I actually prefer that instead