large_* huge_* and giant_*

Is there any rationale to using one superlative over the other? Consider this list of the three of them:

large_eyes
large_cross
large_nipples
large_areola
large_bow
large_buttons
large_insertion
large_breasts

huge_filesize
huge_clitoris
huge_testicles
huge_weapon
huge_sword
huge_dildo
huge_ass
huge_nipples
huge_breasts
huge_penis

giant_leaf
giant_cat
giant_toad
giant_ant
giant_slug
giant_book
giant_poster
giant_brush
giant_monster

There's also gigantic_penis and gigantic_breasts, though I personally wish there weren't, generally.

Now, large_breasts and huge_breasts we've more or less covered at this point, but many of these seem really arbitrary. We have large_bow, but huge_sword and giant_brush? That makes searching for them hard, and remembering how to tag them even harder. Could we possibly come to a consensus (hey, stop your laughing!) for these?

As a side note, I've taken the liberty of cleaning a few typos out of this list.

huge_filesize is a special-case tag for to point out files where the original file is too large for download in most cases (such as PNG overkill).

huge_weapon was created in forum: 31493 to mitigate some of these, such as huge_bow, huge_sword, etc.

Other than that and the breast tags, I don't use any of them, and don't see any convincing use for them as base tags. Especially the ones in little use, I'd suggest we simply nuke (providing the base tags are added in their place).

Also I'm sure I'm annoying Albert by now, so I should shut up at some point, but I'll refer once more to my various rants in forum #34926 about combo-tags.

Some of the giant_animal stuff seems fine where it is to me -- "giant ant", etc. It wouldn't hurt to alias huge_ and large_ versions to those, but is anyone actually using, say, huge_cat? A giant_cat, meanwhile, seems like a logical thing to refer to -- if I saw a cat the size of a house in a post, that's probably what I'd tag it as.

Okay, I was aware of a few of those. However, their existence is exactly the problem. With the exception of breasts which, as I noted, we've worn the ground away to define them, the difference between "large", "huge", and "gigantic" (and "oversize" and "big") is not terribly apparent to me. Nor, as far as I can tell, is the relative connotational distinction especially important.

I'd like to avoid a large alias clusterfuck but I'm inclined to call you daft if you think just trashing a bunch of information is acceptable. Since Danbooru 2 isn't here yet (and likely won't contain niceties like that anyway), it seems it would be prudent to take at least some care to manage our vocabulary. That's what I'm after.

Actually, my personal feeling is that oversize_* would probably serve well for most of these.

Since penis is an anatomical feature like breasts, it should follow a similar scheme for sizing imo.

As for other tags, giant should likely be for the largest objects. At least for me, giant refers to objects (especially animals) that are either larger than a human being or at least are as large as a human when normal sized versions of the object would be smaller than a human. Take ants as an example, when someone says a big, large, or huge ant, that would most likely be imagined by others as an ant that is still smaller than a human but bigger than normal.

This gets a bit more problematic with objects that are around human size already, like weapons. Well this might force another tag for certain sized objects, I think we should go about it on who the item was intended for. Was the object intended to be used by a being larger than a human or was it intended to be used by a human sized individual? Most of the weapons that fall under the huge_weapon tag still have handles, triggers, and such that are scaled to be held by a human sized individual. So even if the item is exceedingly larger than a human, it's operator is still intended to be of human stature, thus we use the huge category to define them.

Objects that were designed to be used by a being of larger stature than a human then should be consider "giant." As an example, some of the images under oversized_object contain spoons and pencils the size of people. Such objects are too large to be used by a human sized individual as would normally be intended (assuming the individual depicted is considered normal human size), and are intended for a being of larger stature than a human, thus are giant in nature.

Giant would be better than oversized, since it follows more in line with our gigantic (of befitting a giant) size already used for penis and breasts. Furthermore oversized does not carry the same scale that giant can, since an oversized insect would still be perceived as an insect smaller than a human.

Hmm, this discussion has led me to the possibly terrible idea of standardizing on D&D size categories : (colossal, gargantuan, huge, large, medium, small, tiny, diminutive, & fine). They are set to be exactly exponential with respect to one another, so it's relatively easy to tell the difference between them.

The problem is that sizes are relative, a "giant flea" is smaller than a "small elephant", and D&D sizes are meant to be absolute. We could modify it such that size modifiers are relative to their prototypical form, so that an "average X" = "medium X" and isn't noted as such in the tag, but a "small X" is half normal size and "large X" is twice normal size.

Thinking about it that way, the exponential scale doesn't give us much useful gradation since sizes naturally follow a bell curve where most size variation is close to average, and it'd be more useful to vary the labels around that point, rather than at the "long tails" at the extremes which is what the D&D scheme does.

Anyway, like I said, this is probably a terrible idea, but it's something to think about if we want to consider better formalizing the way we do sizes. I still don't see this working well without a way to mitigate combo tags, though in an ideal world, modifiers like these would be nice.

I'm usually against information destruction, but for some reason in my mind, tags like giant_book and giant_brush are of limited utility.

I think we only need three levels.

"Tiny" "Normal" "Giant"