flat_chest wiki edit

I recently edited the flat_chest wiki, but since this has been a discussed tag, I thought to ask if this is agreeable.

Weren't breasts and flat_chest supposed to remain mutually exclusive?

The breast tag and the flat_chest tag should not intermingle; it's either/or, not both.

Males are excluded from the tag, full stop.

You should have asked the forum BEFORE making any changes, not AFTER.

Hillside_Moose said:
The breast tag and the flat_chest tag should not intermingle; it's either/or, not both.

Casting aside civility, that's stupid. According to the part of the wiki I left untouched, it does not say "a full-on absence of breasts". Just from one of the most recent examples, post #812719, are you telling me that those are not fully-shaped breasts?

Hillside_Moose said:
Males are excluded from the tag, full stop.

If we must, though I'd like an explanation for post #637520's oddly-shaped pectorals, or post #810841's pointedness, though I might not contest post #733937 on account of baby fat.

EDIT: I may redact post #post #637520, since, if breasts would be applicable, I'm not sure if they'd count as "roughly one-third of the size of [his] head".

flat_chest is a female only tag because males are assumed to have that to begin with.

Also, by and large, we don't give a damn about male images, they make up a vanishingly small percentage of the site, and people looking for flat_chest images are almost certainly not going to want them in their search results.

Breasts and flat_chest are exclusive, don't mix them up. The latter has implicated meaning of breasts but we're not dictionary when it comes to tagging.

Hillside_Moose said:
Males are excluded from the tag, full stop.

Disagree. If I see noticeable breasts, I'm gonna tag it so regardless of gender.

It may be true that males usually have flat chests, but the tag is intended for use solely for females, just like the short_hair tag is not for males.
If you see males with flat_chest, they're either simply mistagged or androgynous.

post #812719 is small_breasts = flat_chest
You might want to read:
breasts
"For Danbooru purposes, this tag refers to images where the breasts are noticeable. You should not use this tag to describe a flat-chested girl."
forum #36999
forum #35056

Would it be out there, then, to request a tag for male "breasts"? (Unfortunately, that'd probably also eclipse fat-man man-boobs, but if it would have to be so...)

EDIT: S1eth = stealth. Anyway, large_breasts is implicated to breasts, making the latter an umbrella tag, rather than some "medium_breasts" equivalent. Yet small_BREASTS is aliased to something that may not necessarily qualify breasts?

rantuyetmai said:
Disagree. If I see noticeable breasts, I'm gonna tag it so regardless of gender.

I was referring to males and flat_chest.

Hillside_Moose said:
I was referring to males and flat_chest.

Okay, then it makes senses :)

T5J8F8 said:
Would it be out there, then, to request a tag for male "breasts"?

.... that just sounds unnecessary to me.

Anyway, large_breasts is implicated to breasts, making the latter an umbrella tag, rather than some "medium_breasts" equivalent. Yet small_BREASTS is aliased to something that may not necessarily qualify breasts?

Again, we're not wikipedia. Tag should be for the easy of browsing, and I doubt anyone searching for breasts would have flat_chest in mind.

rantuyetmai said:
.... that just sounds unnecessary to me.

Everyone's got their fetishes, no?

rantuyetmai said:
Again, we're not wikipedia. Tag should be for the easy of browsing, and I doubt anyone searching for breasts would have flat_chest in mind.

I'm thinking more in regards to their shape than their size. If they look the same as something that would fall under large_breasts but a fraction of the scale, it's still a boob.

And I'm telling you it's useless to do so, not because it's wrong.

rantuyetmai said:
And I'm telling you it's useless to do so, not because it's wrong.

With some slight modifications (and hopefully no one assuming I'm putting "text in his textbox"):

evazion said:
The only thing that you can safely assume when a person is searching [breasts] is that they're looking for [breasts]. Every character with [breasts] should be included in the results, [flat-chested] or not. If I don't want [flat chest] results then I'll add [-flat_chest] to my search. Don't make that decision for me, thank you very much.

The majority search of breasts is assumed to be looking for substantial chest, and that's what we will do. DON'T make thousands of users add -flat_chest in their search while everyone, including you, can easily click on flat_chest or breasts tag separately.

T5J8F8 said:
With some slight modifications

Trying to apply Russian government engine to Eastern Europe is gonna lead to bad end.

To be clear, I don't want every flat_chest post to have breasts added, only the one that are obviously breasts. Heck, I could settle on just ones that have rounded bottoms (as opposed to a shallow quarter-circle, or even a slant; ex: post #801152), or ones viewed from the front that have a line or shading indicating the side of a breast (ex: post #796364). I just find it silly that a chest that unquestionably not "flat" is relegated to "not enough boob" status.

FWIW I agree with T5J8F8 here. We're talking about a minority of posts that happen to be borderline.
I don't think users looking for breasts would get upset by 1 post every 2 pages looking like post #812719 / post #799839 / post #805584 (the only borderline posts in the first 10 pages of flat_chest) .
(And I don't think flat_chest suits post #796364 btw.)

I have no opinion on this issue, but I'd like to point out that a [breasts flat_chest] search yields almost 270 pages of results which are not only about flat-chested girls along with larger-breasted girls in the same pic, but solo and multiple flat-chested girls with no larger-breasted girls etc.

This seems to suggest that a considerable amount of users, if not the majority, agree with T5J8F8's reasoning and tag things accordingly.

Images depicted flat-chested girl and well-endowed girl together account for half of that search.

Flat chest: "breasts roughly one-third of the size of the head and smaller". What's so hard with searching your specific image with this tag, and leave the noticeable size breasts alone?

If I misunderstood something then tell me how to use those tags, because post #807562 is tagged with both and I disagree either should be there. It's like tagging every female image with breasts for god's sake.

About borderline cases, there could be two different solutions.
1. If in doubt, always go with X
X has to be defined and put in the wikis.
(useful for sensitive issues like loli/shota)
2. If in doubt, tag both
(useful for tags where both are applicable, most humans can't tell if it's a or b. (grey_hair/silver_hair/white_hair)

post #807562
I don't see either sideboob, flat_chest or face.
The curvy outline of her chest is visible, but "noticeable breasts"?

rantuyetmai said:
Images depicted flat-chested girl and well-endowed girl together account for half of that search.

Not really.

You forgot that the [breasts flat_chest chartags:>1] search you linked also includes images where all of the girls depicted are flat-chested, with no well-endowed girls present.

Anyway, it's a gray area I guess. As I said, I don't mind either way.