S1eth said: They are a subset of the breasts tag which specifies breasts of any size > 1/3 of the character's head. Gigantic_breasts is essentially only needed to keep track of ToS violations.
(Off topic: Why is "giant breasts" an alias for huge breasts and not gigantic breasts anyway? Confusing as hell, if you ask me.)
Sal.N said: As for definition, we don't have to go with head size. "Small breasts are breasts that can fit in the palm of a hand or smaller, but not flat."
On topic: Sal.N's proposed definition is workable, but "can fit in" is a bit vague. How about, "can be mostly covered by?"
Sal.N said: As for definition, we don't have to go with head size. "Small breasts are breasts that can fit in the palm of a hand or smaller, but not flat."
BCI_Temp said: On topic: Sal.N's proposed definition is workable, but "can fit in" is a bit vague. How about, "can be mostly covered by?"
This definition may look nice but it is not usable in practice. Just as everything else, palms can be very different. So whose palms we are going to use as a comparison, character itself? This is not a reliable option because, compared to the head, they are much more likely to not be visible or properly drawn in an image.
I'm not against removing this alias, but we really need to find good definitions for flat_chest and small_breasts if we want them to be used separately.
Here's my take: It's harder to quantify small breasts than the large ones, so small_breasts definition can be slightly less precise. Something along the lines of "Breasts that are small (no larger than one-third of the character's head) but have a noticeable well defined curve". Examples from the OP and forum #69537: post #1362392, post #1343910, post #1043385. Then flat_chest could be redefined to only include breasts that are truly flat or look that way. Breasts tag would remain as is since it is already defined as "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."
I would just like to throw in my two cents. I think small breasts should be anything that is greater than "flat as a board" for post-pubescent characters, and less than normal sized breasts. What are normal sized breasts? Well, too me, if any part of the breast would hang over a hand if it is placed immediately beneath the breast, I would constitute that as greater than or equal to normal. This also makes it relatively easy to to a visual comparison most of the time. If you look at all of the posts that Toks originally posted, they all meet this criteria, i.e. larger than flat, but not enough to hang:
There are, of course, going to be gray areas with this, but unless you can actually do measurements on the characters, which we can't, it's always going to be subjective. That's not a big deal though, because the difference between normal, large, huge and gigantic is already subjective, so there wouldn't be anything new about it.
I've removed the alias. I find myself often having to do flat_chest -loli if I want to get closer to a search with smallish but not *totally* flat chests.
The flat chest tag is mutually exclusive to the breasts tag, i.e. don't tag both unless another character in the picture meets the criteria for the breasts tag.
Any other wiki irreverence you’d like to tell us about?
I can't really blame him or the other users who used the two tags together despite their wikis, as the only suitable tag for those situations was unavailable at the time. That's one reason I made this suggestion, so that doing that wouldn't be necessary.
Although starting up a discussion would have been better.
I’m a bit confused about how to distinguish between flat_chest and small_breasts. By now both wiki articles state that “a flat chest is exactly what it says, i.e. no breasts whatsoever”, yet the small_breasts wiki has the left girl in post #986739 as an example for flat_chest.
I’m a bit confused about how to distinguish between flat_chest and small_breasts. By now both wiki articles state that “a flat chest is exactly what it says, i.e. no breasts whatsoever”, yet the small_breasts wiki has the left girl in post #986739 as an example for flat_chest.
That's not a good example post. I've removed that line for now. Maybe something like post #685370 would better demonstrate small breasts next to a flat chest.
That's not a good example post. I've removed that line for now. Maybe something like post #685370 would better demonstrate small breasts next to a flat chest.
Yeah, I thought it was a little iffy; it's hard to tell from a front profile like that. post #685370 is definitely better; I'd be fine with throwing it on the Wiki as an example. I'd still like to find another example with a clearer distinction, since the girl on the left in post #685370 is very close to the border between a flat chest and small breasts. Unfortunately, there's not many pictures with just two (or three) girls where it's very distinguishable that one has a flat chest and the other has small breasts.
Yeah, I thought it was a little iffy; it's hard to tell from a front profile like that. post #685370 is definitely better; I'd be fine with throwing it on the Wiki as an example. I'd still like to find another example with a clearer distinction, since the girl on the left in post #685370 is very close to the border between a flat chest and small breasts. Unfortunately, there's not many pictures with just two (or three) girls where it's very distinguishable that one has a flat chest and the other has small breasts.
Indeed, it took me a fair amount of searching just to find post #685370, even though it's not a perfect example.
While I'm still having trouble determining a disqualifying amount of "hang" (some undeniably smaller ones aren't depicted so pert), post #872550 gives me pause on this issue and underboob (which implicates breasts). I'd say they're small breasts, but would someone provide another opinion?
NeverGonnaGive said: While I'm still having trouble determining a disqualifying amount of "hang" (some undeniably smaller ones aren't depicted so pert), post #872550 gives me pause on this issue and underboob (which implicates breasts). I'd say they're small breasts, but would someone provide another opinion?
Her chest is hardly noticeable in that post so I would not tag it with any breast-related tags. For now, I've removed breasts and underboob tags since they clearly weren't appropriate.
post #937801 can't be used as an example because it's tagged loli and thus hidden from regular users. Would be a decent example otherwise though. post #1383454 too borderline, just like previously mentioned post #685370. AFAICS, both of them have flat chest. post #971097 is probably fine. Ghostly Youmu's breasts aren't fully visible so it's hard to say for sure, but from what we can see it's a decent example.
post #971097 is probably fine. Ghostly Youmu's breasts aren't fully visible so it's hard to say for sure, but from what we can see it's a decent example.
That first covers more ground, but this assessment is pretty much how I've eyeballed so far, as shape for the "overhang" goes. Still not sure on that (overhang) for breasts which slip toward the "egg on a nail" end. Tag's still "new", though, so no real worries.
Yeah, I thought about the bust chart tag. Unfortunately, people are easily confused, which is why I'd like to make the comparison as easy as possible by having as few characters in the picture as possible (2 or 3 at most).
Toks said:
In that case, any opinions on post #704292? I think it's a somewhat reasonable example.
post #1383454 and post #685370 are good examples of borderline cases; some may define both girls as having flat chests, whereas others may define one as having small breasts and the other as having a flat chest. I'm fine either way, since these breast size tags are inherently subjective since we can't actually physically measure the girl's chests.
I doubt there would be any retarded edit wars over the difference, but if there are, it can always be settled on the forums (though I doubt this will be an issue).
I doubt there would be any retarded edit wars over the difference, but if there are, it can always be settled on the forums (though I doubt this will be an issue).
Yeah, I doubt there would be as I don't see the difference here as any more ambiguous than the other breast size tags.
