Adjust "impossibly large breasts" definition

Proposal 1: remove and/or replace the “anatomically impossible” from the tag description for impossibly large breasts
 
This is misleading, considering a simple GIS finds RL examples of extreme macromastia that easily qualify for our current scope for “hyper breasts”. Breasts don’t need to be nearly ribcage-sized, let alone torso-sized, to seriously hamper normal function per breathing, limb movement, etc.
 
Proposal 2: Add a reference to the current hyper breasts definition to aid in defining the scope, and to promote the knowlerdge that “impossibly large” actually isn’t the largest category out there.

Ah, hyper limits and people not understanding what the actual examples look like.
 
I think changing the definition won’t work because the name itself implies anatomically impossible.  
I’d go here with the 3rd option: The tag being made more restrictive in terms of how much it takes to reach it; still probably referencing hyper (as a slightly lower category).

@Princess Luna  
If we have to and absolutely must have the word “impossible” in the tag name (which I’m personally against, because it seems to be a source for so much of the tag warring on this tag specifically), we should explain what sort of “impossibility” we mean by it. “Anatomically impossible” is a bad option because as long as someone somewhere had natural breasts that large (regardless of what the actual cause was), it’s “anatomically possible” even if the weight of the breast caused necrosis, ulceration, extreme loss of normal function etc. But anatomical impossibility isn’t the only option. Ever since the description was updated to reference diminished function in breathing, arm movement, balance etc, the word “impossible” has had a potential qualifier in the “impossibility” of normal function in those areas.
 
Even then, I only suggested to amend the description of this tag because I imagined a tag description would be easier to achieve than a tag rename, for a tag this widely used. But I would not be opposed to a rename by any means, especially if we can dump the problematic “impossible”.
 
And I guess at the end of the day, we will need a more practical and concrete guideline for breast size tagging, where-ever the divisions between size category scopes end up being.

I’ve adjusted the descriptions, does that help?

@Princess Luna  
Thank you but “breasts so ridiculously large, they would prevent standing up” and “defy physical logic” is almost the opposite of what I intended. At least “physically impossible” is gone.
 
You also didn’t do anything for part 2 of my suggestion but I guess I worded that in a vague way. I mean that the definition of “impossibly large breasts” should mention/link “hyper breasts” (for torso-sized or larger), and clearly state that “hyper breasts” is actually meant to be the larger category of the two.
 
As for the definition as it’s now, it is very different from the previous one but feels about as non-concrete.
 
“Defy physical logic” seems redundant to “gravity-defying breasts” or whatever that tag was renamed into, and this size of breast can definitely be depicted with realistic physics on account of them occurring in real life. It’s also not an improvement on “anatomically impossible”. “Would prevent standing up” is definitely an escalation from the previous definition, whose exact words I can’t recall, but it did allude to less extreme hinderance to normal everyday functioning. Both parts seem like exaggerations to what the scope is supposed to be, and also exoticizing of a feature that exists on lots of real people.
 
Maybe I’m just reading too much into this. If you meant something like “look like they should cause trouble standing up straight”, then that sounds perfectly plausible and I’d be fine with that until an acceptable measurement can be figured out.
 
Actually let me try. How’s