Minigirl/Miniboy -> Mini Person

BUR #8872 has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

create implication minigirl -> mini_person
create implication miniboy -> mini_person

I think this could use a non-gendered catch-all tag to be consistent with what was decided for giant in topic #17526, and to allow for more accurate tagging of mini humanoids that don't have a discernible gender or canonically don't have one. As it stands now they are either given a gender-specific tag anyway (post #3164488) or not tagged at all (post #4360849). There is the existing miniature tag, and while it looks like it's used somewhat inconsistently, by its current wiki definition and in practice it's more like a counterpart to oversized object in mostly featuring inanimate objects. Animals and other animate non-humanoids could either fit in that tag or have its own tag.

There's also minimized, which claims it's supposed to be used for mini-nonhumans, but I don't know how closely taggers stick to that definition.

no_humans minigirl, no_humans miniboy - check compliance with descriptions.
Best person or human?
Character - too broad as it would include any characters (robot, another non humanoid).

Dolmatov said:

no_humans minigirl, no_humans miniboy - check compliance with descriptions.
Best person or human?
Character - too broad as it would include any characters (robot, another non humanoid).

Person, mainly because there may be non-human characters that would fit the tag (like monster girls, aliens, furry)

The_Bob said:

There's also minimized, which claims it's supposed to be used for mini-nonhumans, but I don't know how closely taggers stick to that definition.

I've done some cleanup to keep the tags more consistent, along the lines of miniature being for inanimate objects and minimized being for non-humanoid animals, creatures, monsters, etc. As best as I could, at least. With some images, I'm not quite sure why they were tagged. Though maybe we could also do renaming of these tags to make them more intuitive?

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

Perhaps some people are only searching for miniboys, or minigirls...

Why add to their burden ?

Claverhouse said:

Perhaps some people are only searching for miniboys, or minigirls...

Why add to their burden ?

It's an implication, not an alias.

+1; what about for mini people whose gender is ambigious? (ie. post #5217737)

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

The bulk update request #8872 (forum #205502) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

Can I get the initial implications looked at again? It did not look like there were any objections that weren't a misunderstanding about it being an alias. As it stands now, if you want to search for a mini person of any gender, it takes three tags to search, so the implication makes that much less cumbersome.

The bulk update request #8872 (forum #205502) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.