@Blissey1  
I don’t agree with that at all, but I’m not going to keep arguing.
 
The tag should only be applied when you see a character with proportions that are only possible in cartoons, and there is a very clear threshold there. That’s the last thing I’ll say on the subject.

Love that this guy is continuing the Twilight/Pinkie feedee/feeder thing.

@Harvest  
it really isn’t as simple as that. take breasts, for instance. yes, it is possible for a women in real life to have breasts larger than her head. but it’s really rare. and then, do you take in the rest of their body type, too? breasts bigger than their head and a size 2 waist? Now that, I’m pretty sure, would be impossible. You could have the same exact breast size be impossible in one image and not in another because one of them is a fattie and the other has an supermodel hourglass figure.
 
It really isn’t as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

@Blissey1  
I think all of this should be common sense if you know what the word impossible means.
 
If something is anatomically possible, do not add the impossibly large tag. It’s as simple as that, but somehow a lot of users don’t seem to get it.

@Blissey1  
I do agree with you that the definition is currently ill-defined. However, defining it for people in a simple and reasonable way is intended to inform people of how they can decide if an image qualifies for a particular tag or not.

@TheDeinonychus  
I’m not arguing that this particular image doesn’t quite qualify for the impossibly large tag. I’m just saying that it’s rediculous to ask people to stop misusing something that has no standardized definition.
 
It great that you have your own definition of it nice and structured like that, but until you can get a consensus with the rest of derpibooru, it’s still just your definition.

@TheDeinonychus  
couldn’t have said that better myself. Bravo

@Blissey1  
Ok, let’s look at the words of the tag, since you both agree that words have meaning. “Impossibly”. We’ll come back to that one. “Large”. Yup, this qualifies as large for sure. “Belly”. Well, that’s certainly not her nose, so that counts.
 
Now back to the first one. Impossibly. The root word is ‘Impossible’. The meaning of which is ‘beyond the realm of possibility’ or ‘something that is not possible’.
 
When you go to add one of those tags to an image, you should first ask yourself ‘could the character really have that without stretching the bounds of reality’. In this case, no, compared to quite a lot of fat pics on here, Twi isn’t even all that big in the last frame. She’s certainly big, and deserving of the ‘obese’ tag (though not the ‘morbidly obese’ tag), but in now way is her size ‘impossible’.
 
Unfortunately the ‘Impossibly Large’ tags get mis-used way too much based on personal preferences. I turn into it a lot with ‘Impossibly Large Penis’. Seems to be some people think that every time there’s a horse cock involved it’s instantly impossibly large, despite the fact that, believe it or not, horse cocks are just naturally very fricking big.

@Background Pony #16AD  
yes, words have meaning. and sometimes that meaning is subjective. which means that one person’s impossibly large is not the same as another person’s impossibly large.
 
and quite frankly, if you think this is only “kind of big”, then I’m worried about your health.

@Blissey1  
Words have meaning. If I see someone use the tag “impossibly large” when they just mean “kind of big” I’ll remove it every time.

@Harvest  
it’s not like there’s established guidelines for when a body part qualifies for impossibly large, ya know.

Please stop misusing the impossibly large body part tag, y’all.

Please make the last panel into a body pillow

She’s fattening you up to eat you, run! Or at least call someone with a truck to drag you away.