Small Size Revision

[Tllmbrg]

So it was recently agreed to base the border of Large Size through the tallest person ever.
So shouldn't we by the same token use the smallest person ever as our basis for Small Size Type 0?
If so one would need to be below 54.6 centimeters (1 ft 91⁄2 in).

 

[Tllmbrg]

@Antvasima @Mr._Bambu @Sir_Ovens @Armorchompy @SamanPatou

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think another limit is the tallest person ever is also accurate period considering we label as tallest at peak. (Also, that only includes recorded history and excludes skeletons of ancient people)

Where as this version is based of judging how tall the shortest person was at adult hood where as a lot of new born babies were shorter than this.

Edit: I noticed Type 0 was dwarf sized, so actually I guess this is fine but I think Type 1 should be lowered given it's just barely a gap in that regard.

 

[Tllmbrg]

Well, then we should decide if we base our border of adults or baby humans.
Or maybe we should pick a different metric entirely and go off what is the minimum height to be considered a dwarf (That being 147 centimeters)

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, we should probably have a discussion about what the borders of our small size ratings are then.

 

[Antvasima]

Is this change truly necessary though, if it would require us to find, evaluate, and revise a lot of pages with this ability listed?

 

[Tllmbrg]

It only affects type 0 though, which I doubt makes up the vast majority of the category
Plus it's something that can be overhauled overtime, and as it stands the border for type 0 Small Size os really random and has no basis

 

[Tllmbrg]

Bump

 

[Tllmbrg]

@Celestial_Pegasus @CrimsonStarFallen @Damage3245

 

[Damage3245]

I have no strong opinions on this.

 

[Flashlight237]

I dunno, while I can understand the change in Large Size, Small Size..? That's the thing, we see kindergarteners, for example, as small and those people usually sit in the 1-meter cutoff we currently have on average. Yet on the same vein, dogs that long are considered medium-sized or big dogs depending on the breed and gender. Doing anything to the Type 0 cutoff would make it too close to Type 1 for it to even have a purpose. I'd go as far as to say giving the other Small Size types actual examples is more important of a change than whatever this is.

 

[Tllmbrg]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Is this change truly necessary though, if it would require us to find, evaluate, and revise a lot of pages with this ability listed?

I dunno, while I can understand the change in Large Size, Small Size..? That's the thing, we see kindergarteners, for example, as small and those people usually sit in the 1-meter cutoff we currently have on average. Yet on the same vein, dogs that long are considered medium-sized or big dogs depending on the breed and gender. Doing anything to the Type 0 cutoff would make it too close to Type 1 for it to even have a purpose. I'd go as far as to say giving the other Small Size types actual examples is more important of a change than whatever this is.

Flashlight seems to make sense to me here, and I still maintain my previous statement.

 

[Ogurtsow]

If so one would need to be below 54.6 centimeters (1 ft 91⁄2 in).

IMO, this one suits the upper limit of Type 1: being smaller than any known adult human describes it pretty well.

As for Type 0, I believe the upper limit should be eventually increased upto 147 cm (as pointed out by you), but in case if the majority considers this change way too broad to apply for now, I'm fine with 122 cm, which is the average height of small humans.

Type 9 doesn't really suit this power well, as being one- or two-dimensional doesn't make you automatically smaller than a quantum and the Planck length (either in length or in length and width). Lower-Dimensionality should be its own thing. If I made the page, I'd use two separate types instead:

Type 9 (Sub-Quantum): Characters who are significantly tinier than the Planck length. These characters are so small that they perceive elementary particles as large as humans perceive the Universe.

Type 10 (Infinitesimal): Characters whose size is immeasurably small or infinitesimal.

 

[Flashlight237]

IMO, this one suits the upper limit of Type 1: being smaller than any known adult human describes it pretty well.

As for Type 0, I believe the upper limit should be eventually increased upto 147 cm (as pointed out by you), but in case if the majority considers this change way too broad to apply for now, I'm fine with 122 cm, which is the average height of small humans.

Yeah, I think 147 cm seems too broad too. I might even argue that 122 cm is too broad. This is considered large for dogs, and preteens and teenagers can achieve the larger size cap and still grow.

Type 9 doesn't really suit this power well, as being one- or two-dimensional doesn't make you automatically smaller than a quantum and the Planck length (either in length or in length and width). Lower-Dimensionality should be its own thing. If I made the page, I'd use two separate types instead:

Type 9 (Sub-Quantum): Characters who are significantly tinier than the Planck length. These characters are so small that they perceive elementary particles as large as humans perceive the Universe.

Type 10 (Infinitesimal): Characters whose size is immeasurably small or infinitesimal.

That I can agree. A lot of 2D or lower entities are very much visible through TV screens or a piece of paper or, in Flatland's case, Arthur Square waltzing up to them. Rumble McSkirmish, one go-to 11-A character, is normally a video game sprite, which are usually centimeters tall. Big question is where in the effing hell do we find anything for Type 9 and 10?

 

[Ogurtsow]

Big question is where in the effing hell do we find anything for Type 9 and 10?

I know a couple examples.

The first one is the Disembodied Thought. It can become smaller and smaller because each next universe is about the size of a quantum of the previous universe. So far, it's like infinite matrioshka.

The second one is the Monarch of Pointland. He's an infinitesimal point.

 

[Antvasima]

IMO, this one suits the upper limit of Type 1: being smaller than any known adult human describes it pretty well.

As for Type 0, I believe the upper limit should be eventually increased upto 147 cm (as pointed out by you), but in case if the majority considers this change way too broad to apply for now, I'm fine with 122 cm, which is the average height of small humans.

Type 9 doesn't really suit this power well, as being one- or two-dimensional doesn't make you automatically smaller than a quantum and the Planck length (either in length or in length and width). Lower-Dimensionality should be its own thing. If I made the page, I'd use two separate types instead:

Type 9 (Sub-Quantum): Characters who are significantly tinier than the Planck length. These characters are so small that they perceive elementary particles as large as humans perceive the Universe.

Type 10 (Infinitesimal): Characters whose size is immeasurably small or infinitesimal.

@DontTalkDT @AKM sama

What do you think about this?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Feel like 147cm might be too tall as a border.
The average female in Guatemala 148cm, meaning many are smaller than that apparently. One could argue that they included some teenagers 15 years and above could be the reason for that, but then Bolivia has 149 cm in the age group 20 to 29.
And Guatemala had an average of just 150.9cm for 19 year olds, apparently.

Basically, I'm not sure if not in certain regions of the world a decent amount of the population qualify for Small Size by this.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the evaluation.

So what do you think that we should do here?

 

[Flashlight237]

I feel Ogurtsow's proposals for new Small Size tiers are more workable than the proposed changes to Type 0 Small Size. Just spitballing here.