Danbooru

Tag Discussion: little_person

Posted under General

from forum #24351...

Would a little_person tag be useful or desired for Danbooru? The Tarutaru and Lalafell would be immediate targets, but is there enough interest outside of those named races to identify smaller than average non-chibis?

If so, then do...
Aliasing little_people -> little_person.
Aliasing midget -> little_person.
Aliasing midgets -> little_person.
(Aliasing little_persons -> little_person?)
... sound about right?

Updated by jxh2154

I don't think the ridiculously over-PC term "little people" is going to stick. I've always seen it as condescending and cutesy. It also doesn't fit well with other character types that will invariably end up with the tag (like gnomes, dwarves, leprachauns, pixies, dryads, brownies, etc.).

In fact, by having gnomes and the like with the tag "little people" you're likely going to offend the very people you are going to great lengths not to offend.

Perhaps both terms "midget" and "little people" (along with dwarf, gnome, etc.) should alias to a broader non-offensive term like "short stature". This is a term that LPs are not offended by, but also one the LP culture does not feel belongs exclusively to them.

Is this something seen often on Danbooru (dwarfism of the non-fantasy variety)? I'm also not entirely sure I like the idea of lumping every short humanoid fantasy creature under one tag.

If anything I say we implicate them to short_stature. That term is descriptive and adjectival as are most of our descriptive tags, and isn't strongly associated with specific real-world instances of dwarfism.

It should also be explicitly specified that this tag not be used for children, or minuscule (fairy sided) characters.

EDIT: We'd also have to discuss if stereotypical anime geriatrics à la Ranma ½ are included or excluded.

Shinjidude makes a lot of sense here. By using implication instead of alias we keep individual fantasy character types but also avoid the pitfall of taggers sticking a "little person" tag on Sleepy, Grumpy, and Doc simply for lack of a better tag.

Short_stature sounds fine, although I'm not sure about implications. Couldn't someone intentionally draw a tarutaru or whatever with normal proportions? Though I guess if they haven't, then it's not a big deal...

"Little People" seems quaint,fraught and imprecise, IMHO. The Chinese have historically used this term to refer to Japanese in an offensive way, for example (see exegesis below), and today "Little People of America" is a civil-rights group for dwarves and midgets.

Why not just call a thing exactly what it is?

mithracal cheers!

(Half of the Western language dictionaries note that Chinese Wō 倭 "Japanese" means "little person; dwarf", while most Chinese-Chinese definitions overlook the graphic slur with Δ type "ancient name for Japan" definitions. This explicitly racist A "dwarf" description is found more often in Occidental language dictionaries than in Oriental ones. The historically more accurate, and ethnically less insulting, "subservient; compliant" B type is limited to Chinese-Japanese and Chinese-German dictionaries. The Γ type "derogatory" notation occurs most often among Japanese and European language dictionaries. The least edifying Δ "(old name for) Japan" type definitions are found twice more often in Chinese-Chinese than in Chinese-Japanese dictionaries, and three times more than in Western ones.

Even the modern-day Unicode universal character standard reflects inherent lexicographic problems with this ancient Chinese Wō 倭 "Japan" affront. The Unihan (Unified CJK characters) segment of Unicode largely draws definitions from two online dictionary projects, the Chinese CEDICT and Japanese EDICT. The former lists Chinese wo1 倭 "Japanese; dwarf", wokou4 倭寇 "(in ancient usage) the dwarf-pirates; the Japs", and wonu2 倭奴 "(used in ancient times) the Japanese; (in modern usage, derogatively) the Japs". The latter lists Japanese yamato 倭 "ancient Japan", wajin 倭人 "(an old word for) a Japanese", and wakou 倭寇 "Japanese pirates".)

I suppose short is fine, though short_length could be used for bodily description as well.

I'm still not sure I like it because now it feels extremely dilute. The original intent was to have a tag for distinguishing and grouping short non-humans.

Plain short feels like it should also be allowed to be used for school-girls and the like. I suppose the same could be said for short_stature, but simply because it's not as intuitive I don't think it would be used that way.

So you're not actually trying to invent a tag for short people, you're trying to invent an umbrella tag for species that are short... Hmmm, his isn't obvious from the opening post, though I guess I should have followed the link first.

First of all, do we really need such a tag to begin with?

But, I was intending a tag for smaller-proportioned people. I figured the Taru & Lala were human-looking enough to also get it. We tag based on what a pic looks like, and I'd assume they'd strike someone as close to human, as opposed to goblins and such, which are distinctly inhuman.

Lokispawn said:
...

That was my entire point (except I could care less if it was PC or not). I don't think it's good to use any term commonly associated with real world dwarfism as a umbrella term for short fantasy creatures.

You mean you couldn't care less .

And "short" is a broad enough term to avoid any accusations of prejudice against "people of short stature" (what the hell?), not to mention that this is danbooru, a site focused on anime/manga-related art. I really see this as a no-brainer.

If indeed the intent was to create a tag that described short species of non-humans, then I'd recommend short species.

1 2