Change "huge" and "gigantic" to "very large" and "extremely large"

BUR #16949 has been rejected.

create alias huge_breasts -> very_large_breasts
create alias gigantic_breasts -> extremely_large_breasts

BUR is just for voting, do not approve

Frankly speaking. I've always disliked the nomenclature for our size sliding scale, it's not exactly clear at first glance.
By changing names, it's easier for the common user to figure out whether huge is larger or smaller than gigantic or large (or even discover that there are more sizes than the one they're searching, thanks for them appearing in autocomplete) without checking the wiki.

I think this naming scheme is an improvement, yes.
However, since our hair length scale goes: long | very long | absurdly long, maybe breasts should match?

KagayakuShiningGate said:

I think this naming scheme is an improvement, yes.
However, since our hair length scale goes: long | very long | absurdly long, maybe breasts should match?

I stand with this second option. Should this issue also apply to penis sizes as well, in the name of consistency and standardization?
large | very large | absurdly large
Even the metatag that indicates image resolution uses the word absurd.

I do not think that this change will improve the tagging. People who don't read the wikis won't apply these tags correctly even with new names. And people who do read the wikis already know which ones are larger.

Besides, I think that current names are intuitive enough already, "huge" is larger than simply "large", and "gigantic" is the largest of the three.

MyrMindservant said:

I do not think that this change will improve the tagging. People who don't read the wikis won't apply these tags correctly even with new names. And people who do read the wikis already know which ones are larger.

Besides, I think that current names are intuitive enough already, "huge" is larger than simply "large", and "gigantic" is the largest of the three.

Agree that the terminology is self-evident, but i also like the idea of changing the wording to match the scaling of hair.

Matching scales would be good.

Large/Huge/Gigantic do require the ever slight thinking pause.
And some people do order them differently!

MyrMindservant said:
People who don't read the wikis won't apply these tags correctly even with new names.

Lots of tags have widely ignored subtelties.

Either the tag has to be descriptive (long hair -> waist-long hair), but this is often impractical (huge breasts -> 1~2xhead-big breasts.
Or the tagging interface should show a mini-description.

World_Funeral said:

I stand with this second option. Should this issue also apply to penis sizes as well, in the name of consistency and standardization?

Yes.

KagayakuShiningGate said:

I think this naming scheme is an improvement, yes.
However, since our hair length scale goes: long | very long | absurdly long, maybe breasts should match?

I'm leaning towards "yes", but I'm not entirely convinced.

Musaran said:

Matching scales would be good.

Large/Huge/Gigantic do require the ever slight thinking pause.
And some people do order them differently!

Lots of tags have widely ignored subtelties.

Either the tag has to be descriptive (long hair -> waist-long hair), but this is often impractical (huge breasts -> 1~2xhead-big breasts.
Or the tagging interface should show a mini-description.

To be honest i wouldn't be against a waist-long hair utility alias for very long hair and probably something similar for absurdly long hair

KagayakuShiningGate said:

I think this naming scheme is an improvement, yes.
However, since our hair length scale goes: long | very long | absurdly long, maybe breasts should match?

I agree with the principle but think the OP's term of 'extremely' is preferable to 'absurdly' for all such tags. Calling something absurd can be viewed as an unfavourable judgement of it, whereas things described as extreme are simply beyond realistic expectations, with no further implications being made. It's not much of a difference but I presume it's at least marginally preferable for tag names to be neutral in tone as they are purely descriptive.

Please don’t change this. I BEG of you.

Gigantic is one, simple word with an intuitive meaning and neutral connotations. Being more colloquial and down to earth makes it more casual and descriptive.

“Extreme” is judging by very nature and is certainly negative connotatively if not denotatively. Makes them feel freakish or nasty which is really not something I want.

Very/extremely large are also multiple words when one works just fine.

When using different words for size categories is way more intuitive. “Are they huge or gigantic” is more natural than “are they large or…very large?” The categories become less clear, and it feels like you’re talking about the same thing

It would be like changing the “plump” tag to “obese” or “overweight”. That playful casual softness is good for an ART site.

Mayhem-Chan said:

To be honest i wouldn't be against a waist-long hair utility alias for very long hair and probably something similar for absurdly long hair

Very long hair isn't waist-length hair but hair past waist, which already is an alias. And absurdly long hair has hair past feet.

I'm against this change as well for the fact the large, huge and gigantic in regards to breasts, and penises since they would sensibly be affected by such a change anyway, are already clearly understood by people who properly tag them anyway. The words we use already are intuitive enough, this feels like a change for the sake of change and wouldn't actually lead to better tagging.

Current tagging seems to be doing quite a good job categorizing tags as things stand. Large breasts is at 1.2M tags. Huge breasts is at 148K tags. Gigantic breasts is at 6.1K.

It seems like people are sorting things with a distribution that seems fairly intuitive in spite of the inherent fuzziness of the categories.

I'm against this for reasons mentioned already but also because "huge_breasts" and "gigantic_breasts" are just so much easier and faster to type than "very_large_breasts" and "extremely_large_breasts". I don't see why we need to increase the letter count for effectively the same thing when it works just fine as is.

Honestly agree with the current set up.

It easy, intuitive, and most importantly.

WORKS.

Changing it just for the sgake of it makes no sense and just makes everything harder for both Users and Taggers.

Basically it will improve anything so why change it?

The current system is equally intuitive as the proposed one, plus, it allows for *ge_breasts to be used as a catch-all for “big boobs.” Wildcards don’t seem to work as well when used for “anything before this including nothing.”

I've always disliked the nomenclature for our size sliding scale, it's not exactly clear at first glance.

And it will never be, since it's impossible to measure exact cup size for a drawn anime girl at a glance. Any replacement tags will bring exactly the same complaint in the future. I would settle with the current system as it's what people are used to, and as it's been said before, it's easier to type.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #16949 (forum #241954) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.