The fatness range naming of e621 (see wiki of overweight) seems to be extremely unaligned with what is used everywhere in my country.
I am calling "overweight" what is designed as "Slightly chubby", "Obese" what is designed as "Overweight", "extremely Obese" what is designed as "Obese". And "morbidly obese" is for me something as mythical as siamese twins. Meaning that they are possible to exist but really a lot rarer than dwarfs. To point how unaligned the naming is, my sister already called my brother "Obese" for what e621 call "Slightly chubby".
I think that those name are those of an American standard (I know that it is an other world about fatness. Nothing compared to what action movies says about America.) Far from European standard, Asian standard or African standard.
This already came out in topic #30162.
I don't tag fatness because I don't want to see those things and they don't seem to be such a big part of posts compared to the rest. But don't be surprised if people tag things completely differently than what you except. Most of the world is unaligned with chosen naming. In japan, which I know to be a lot stricter about weight than my country, "Slightly chubby" will certainly be called "Obese".
I don't know if something should be done but I wanted to make the situation clearer.

At least morbidly_obese is correctly tagged.

Some ~42% of America is obese by BMI, which definitely does not align with how we use the tags

For a specific example, I myself am 300 pounds with a BMI of 42 and considered morbidly obese
I am nowhere near as large as how we tag morbidly obese, which you claim we tag "correctly"

You're comparing real humans to fake animal characters, don't do that, that way lies madness
Our scaling needs to be different because we cannot weigh characters, the wiki pages are the be-all end-all of definitions, don't go looking for or comparing to real world definitions

donovan_dmc said:
For a specific example, I myself am 300 pounds with a BMI of 42 and considered morbidly obese
I am nowhere near as large as how we tag morbidly obese, which you claim we tag "correctly"

Ok, I am wrong with what is morbidly_obese. It correspond to what is pictured as "Obese". So every e621 weight tag is very different from reality.
I don't think that being fictional character change anything. I don't see the weight of fictional character different from weight of real person.
I know that is the e621 naming because I look at wikis.
This is counter-intuitive. So you will just have to be tolerant with people that are sure that a character should be tagged more than what you want it to be tagged.

donovan_dmc said:
Some ~42% of America is obese by BMI, which definitely does not align with how we use the tags

For a specific example, I myself am 300 pounds with a BMI of 42 and considered morbidly obese
I am nowhere near as large as how we tag morbidly obese, which you claim we tag "correctly"

You're comparing real humans to fake animal characters, don't do that, that way lies madness
Our scaling needs to be different because we cannot weigh characters, the wiki pages are the be-all end-all of definitions, don't go looking for or comparing to real world definitions

I can't believe i now have to add morbidly obese (lore) to all donovan dmc posts

I am 79kg which is 174 pounds and I think I am too fat.
You can see how much different countries are.

I will precise my point about fictional characters. If they have too different shape from humans, then we can't tag them the same way than human. If they shape is close enough to humans, they can be tagged the same way.
In case of hyper-breast, I think we should ignore the weight added by the breast and tag based on the belly. Same for inflated belly (because of just having swallowed something) and others things that can be seen as not normal, we should ignore them. I would tag based on what is comparable.

mikael_the_d said:
I will precise my point about fictional characters. If they have too different shape from humans, then we can't tag them the same way than human. If they shape is close enough to humans, they can be tagged the same way.
In case of hyper-breast, I think we should ignore the weight added by the breast and tag based on the belly. Same for inflated belly (because of just having swallowed something) and others things that can be seen as not normal, we should ignore them. I would tag based on what is comparable.

How are you weighing anthros
You also have to measure their height to use the real world definitions
Neither of these are possible, nor would they result in useful classifications
This would result in cramming the majority of characters in 1 or 2 weight tags while the rest are mostly empty, with us needing to make up new classifications for what the tags currently mean

We also can't just make huge sweeping changes on definitions because thes are used for blacklisting, and breaking blacklistd that have worked for years is always a thing we should avoid as much as possible

donovan_dmc said:
How are you weighing anthros
You also have to measure their height to use the real world definitions
Neither of these are possible, nor would they result in useful classifications

I don't need to put a character on a scale to measure their weight. If they visibly looks exactly of a category (obese for example) they are supposed to be tagged with it.
Words used are just visibly wrong according to all the people I know.

This would result in cramming the majority of characters in 1 or 2 weight tags while the rest are mostly empty, with us needing to make up new classifications for what the tags currently mean

It seems that currently, higher weight imply lower weight. So going one weight higher would not "put in multiple categories" because every categories are already stacked.
Say louder word won't create conflict because it's lower weight that are implied so lower name would be here anyway.

We also can't just make huge sweeping changes on definitions because thes are used for blacklisting, and breaking blacklistd that have worked for years is always a thing we should avoid as much as possible

I know that. It's why I said from the start that I was not asking for change.
I am just warning that e621 is in a bubble of "kinder on weight" naming that I suspect to be American centered, and that many countries have stronger words expectation.

mikael_the_d said:
I don't need to put a character on a scale to measure their weight. If they visibly looks exactly of a category (obese for example) they are supposed to be tagged with it.
Words used are just visibly wrong according to all the people I know.

So rather than the current arbitrary lines we have that you don't agree with, you want different arbitrary lines that other people won't agree with

mikael_the_d said:
It seems that currently, higher weight imply lower weight. So going one weight higher would not "put in multiple categories" because every categories are already stacked.
Say louder word won't create conflict because it's lower weight that are implied so lower name would be here anyway.

It sounds like you are missing my point in its entirety, I made no mention of anything like this

mikael_the_d said:
I know that. It's why I said from the start that I was not asking for change.
I am just warning that e621 is in a bubble of "kinder on weight" naming that I suspect to be American centered, and that many countries have stronger words expectation.

I can't imagine why a site with a likely majority american audience that's also hosted in america by an american company would be american centered

donovan_dmc said:
So rather than the current arbitrary lines we have that you don't agree with, you want different arbitrary lines that other people won't agree with

"Overweight", "Obese" and "Morbidly Obese" have been defined by science on what most of the world agree, except mainly America. So it's a factual description shared by most people outside of America.
It's not "arbitrary lines", it's what most people have agreed on.
But like America didn't switched to kilogram or meter, they didn't aligned to what means obese (and other weight state) and still use the same word.
Ok, this won't change because it's mainly a website made by and for Americans. But at least you now know that America is on the exception side of fatness words.

mikael_the_d said:
"Overweight", "Obese" and "Morbidly Obese" have been defined by science on what most of the world agree, except mainly America. So it's a factual description shared by most people outside of America.
It's not "arbitrary lines", it's what most people have agreed on.

But how do you measure it in a drawn picture of (often fur-covered/fluffy) fictional creatures? A drawing that may not have a realistic depiction of anatomy or perspective? We can't ask them to step on a scale, or accurately measure their size.

In all honesty the fat tags on this site are done by eye-balling it with a general idea of how much or how little a character is drawn to be a fat ass Wal-Mart shopper

nin10dope said:
In all honesty the fat tags on this site are done by eye-balling it with a general idea of how much or how little a character is drawn to be a fat ass Wal-Mart shopper

Well it's done by sight, but it's not really about eyeballing it

snpthecat said:
Well it's fine my sight, but it's not really about eyeballing it

I know not literally eyeballing it, it requires a general understanding of standards
It's definitely used imperfectly cuz some people like to underplay it (at least in the past) but that's rare

Only horse I have in the race is that it drives me up the wall that "slightly chubby" is a tag but just straight up "chubby" isn't. (Or, well, it is, but it...redirects or whatever, I don't claim to have a good understanding about how the tag stuff works, I just know I would like to tag a lot of my art with 'chubby' and can't, and it's frustrating.)

sloppyheadwind said:
Only horse I have in the race is that it drives me up the wall that "slightly chubby" is a tag but just straight up "chubby" isn't. (Or, well, it is, but it...redirects or whatever, I don't claim to have a good understanding about how the tag stuff works, I just know I would like to tag a lot of my art with 'chubby' and can't, and it's frustrating.)

The distinction between "chubby" and overweight is too vague, leading people to tag one for the other. slightly_chubby (theoretically) helps to avoid that issue by clarifying the character has a slight amount of chubbiness, leaving characters with more than a slight amount of chubbiness to overweight which better represents it.

It makes sense for what y'all are doing, I just don't like it myself is all. :P Logic be damned, I'd personally rather have 'chubby' take precedence over 'overweight' to both match with 'slightly chubby' and not sound so clinical. (Granted, that doesn't have a solution for less clinical-sounding things for the higher tiers, but I'll gladly admit I didn't think much further past this point, especially since it's a hypothetical/petty complaint that won't go anywhere.)

watsit said:
The distinction between "chubby" and overweight is too vague, leading people to tag one for the other. slightly_chubby (theoretically) helps to avoid that issue by clarifying the character has a slight amount of chubbiness, leaving characters with more than a slight amount of chubbiness to overweight which better represents it.

Imo 'chubby' should be a disambiguation. A lot of people still tag it for 'overweight', chibi-ish styles, and big boobs/thighs. Aliasing it to slightly_chubby puts clutter in the tag that obscures the definition.