Aliasing unusually_hyper_penis → hyper_penis
Link to alias

Reason:

Hyper is meant to be the highest size category. Why do we need a category higher than the highest?

I think the idea is that the character already has hyper proportions, but their penis is still unproportionally larger than the rest of them. Still, I don't really think it's all that necessary. +1

BlueDingo said:
Aliasing unusually_hyper_penis → hyper_penis
Link to alias

Reason:

Hyper is meant to be the highest size category. Why do we need a category higher than the highest?

+1. It seems super repetitive and unnecessary.

Related aliases:

• hyper labia → hyper pussy
• hyper soiling → hyper feces
• hyper thick penis → hyper penis
• hyper thighs → hyper hips
• hyper udders → big teats (or possible hyper teats, but that tag is unused and big teats is used more. perhaps a suggestion for a hyper teat tag?)

Related implications:

• hyper hips → wide hips

I am not sure if aliasing is a good idea. This tag appear to have some usefulness, since it allows to search specifically for penises that aren't just impossibly large, but considerably larger than the character itself.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

Related aliases:

• hyper labia → hyper pussy
• hyper soiling → hyper feces
• hyper thick penis → hyper penis
• hyper thighs → hyper hips

Related implications:

• hyper hips → wide hips

+1 for these.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

• hyper udders → big teats (or possible hyper teats, but that tag is unused and big teats is used more. perhaps a suggestion for a hyper teat tag?)

I see 'hyper_teats'_empty as a more appropriate tag.

If kept it should probably be renamed or only used for posts like post #1167183

For Reference this is the thread were the existing implication was applied forum #170202

mark me a lil bit confused as to why paraspite approved this when their intention did seem to be alias or emptying out the tag.

As to keeping the tag or not, i rewrote the wiki based off of the content in the tag being composed mostly of a form of hyper that goes beyond the overall size of the character and approaching the size of a buildings. i do think its useful in keeping hyper penises that are comically larger then the character themselves separate from hyper that is within the confines of the characters size thou breasts, balls and pussy dont seem to have that split.

Renaming it certainly would be in order thou if it is kept.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

Related aliases:

• hyper labia → hyper pussy

-1 considering labia does get tagged as its own feature https://e621.net/tag?name=*labia*&type=&order=count

*edit: actually scratch that +1 to the alias, jumped the gun there.

• hyper soiling → hyper feces

-1 to alias, +1 to implication ; feces is scat, soiling is scat loaded diapers :s

• hyper thick penis → hyper penis

not too sure, seems to work better then applying thick_penis and hyper_penis separately to find the desired content. There is also hyper_thin_penis...

• hyper thighs → hyper hips

-1 seperate body features eg. wide_hips and thick_thighs

• hyper udders → big teats (or possible hyper teats, but that tag is unused and big teats is used more. perhaps a suggestion for a hyper teat tag?)

-1 to alias, +1 to implication to hyper_teats ; Udders are a subset of teats, not all teats are udders and hyper udders are most certainly too big to be applied to big_teats, some fatty tissues in big_teats are the equivalent of small breasts in general size, most certainly not hyper...

Related implications:

• hyper hips → wide hips

-1 hyper denotes an increase in all directions, not just the width of the hips, in my opinion...

Ruku said:

-1 to alias, +1 to implication ; feces is scat, soiling is scat loaded diapers :s

I hadn't considered that while evaluating the suggestion... My bad.

Ruku said:

-1 seperate body features eg. wide_hips and thick_thighs

This would be true under normal conditions, but a extreme increase in tights thickness result in a extreme increase in hips width and vice versa.

Ruku said:

-1 to alias, +1 to implication to hyper_teats ; Udders are a subset of teats, not all teats are udders and hyper udders are most certainly too big to be applied to big_teats, some fatty tissues in big_teats are the equivalent of small breasts in general size, most certainly not hyper...

Do you really think that makes sense to do an implication if the content under the two tags would be exactly the same? 'Hyper_teats' was never used, so the only reason to create such tag would be to alias 'hyper_udders' to it, because of standardization (big_X, huge_X, hyper_X).

Ruku said:

-1 hyper denotes an increase in all directions, not just the width of the hips, in my opinion...

Do you know that an increase in all directions, consequently increase the width as well, don't you?

I could see keeping some form of this, but it would have to be renamed. Hyper is simply in the vein of "Impossibly large," but it's very easy to go beyond even that, to the point where it looks like there's more body mass in the penis, breasts, etc than the rest of the body. And, beyond that, there's planetary sized ones, where you cannot even see the character without a closeup.

Furrin_Gok said:
I could see keeping some form of this, but it would have to be renamed. Hyper is simply in the vein of "Impossibly large," but it's very easy to go beyond even that, to the point where it looks like there's more body mass in the penis, breasts, etc than the rest of the body. And, beyond that, there's planetary sized ones, where you cannot even see the character without a closeup.

If hyper is already impossibly large, what's beyond that? "Impossibly impossibly large," which cannot be conceived twice over?

O16 said:
This would be true under normal conditions, but a extreme increase in tights thickness result in a extreme increase in hips width and vice versa.

not really, thigh is the part of the legs below the joint between the calf bone and hip bones. You can have hyper sized thighs without the actual hips visually increasing in size, hyper thighs also may include expansion inward sealing up the gap of the crotch rather then outward, that wouldnt visually effect the actual hips at all.

Do you really think that makes sense to do an implication if the content under the two tags would be exactly the same? 'Hyper_teats' was never used, so the only reason to create such tag would be to alias 'hyper_udders' to it, because of standardization (big, huge, hyper).

This is Udder as it is commonly tagged on e621 post #1148097 post #1088839
These are teats as they are commonly tagged on e621 post #402184 post #372212 post #1200632

Just because a tag is underused or not in use at the moment does not make it the same, content would not be the same because once the tag was noticed people would be tagging structures akin to cow udders under Hyper udders. while mammary glandular structures of other animals would fall under hyper teats.

teats and udders(specifically) are separate tags because people searching for teats are likely to not want cow udders to also be in their searches.

Do you know that an increase in all directions, consequently increase the width as well, don't you?

yes but your implication implys that hyper_hips only ever increase in width and no other direction which is the problem with your suggestion

[/quote]

Strikerman said:
If hyper is already impossibly large, what's beyond that? "Impossibly impossibly large," which cannot be conceived twice over?

It's a matter of the stages of impossiblity.

Like the difference between huge_penetration and ridiculous_fit, yes. Could probably keep that, as long as it's only used for posts such as aforementioned...
post #1167183

^{(Noticed that someone's also created a hyper_penetration tag. Which we agreed not to use, because of ambiguity. More clean up. Sigh.)}

Ruku said:
not really, thigh is the part of the legs below the joint between the calf bone and hip bones. You can have hyper sized thighs without the actual hips visually increasing in size, hyper thighs also may include expansion inward rather then outward, that wouldnt visually effect the actual hips at all.

I tried finding some post that justify your argument, but failed; so let's be a bit more realistic.
Do you have some example that supports your argument? Because neither the content under those tags nor a theory without real representation justify keeping them separated.

Ruku said:

Just because a tag is underused or not in use at the moment does not make it the same, content would not be the same because once the tag was noticed people would be tagging structures akin to cow udders under Hyper udders. while mammary glandular structures of other animals would fall under hyper teats.

Currently an alias seems more appropriate, but I see what you want to state.
I supose your suggestion would be safer long-term if people start using the tag as you imagine, however if they don't we will just end up with one more unnecessary/redundant tag.

Ruku said:
teats and udders(specifically) are separate tags because people searching for teats are likely to not want cow udders to also be in their searches.

As you said "udders are a subset of teats"; if someone really wants to see teats but not udders, then he/she/it may search for 'teats -udders'. The alias in question wouldn't prevent the search system of working.

Ruku said:

yes but your implication implys that hyper_hips only ever increase in width and no other direction which is the problem with your suggestion

But the size of hips is measured according their width, how do hyper hips couldn't be considered wide, if the criteria used to define that them are "hyper" is justly their width?

O16 said:
I tried finding some post that justify your argument, but failed; so let's be a bit more realistic.
Do you have some example that supports your argument? Because neither the content under those tags nor a theory without real representation justify keeping them separated.

I admit i wasnt prepared to anwser considering hips and thigh are not really something i take interest in thru id did find this post #1237439 fairly clear where their hips end on its left and its hyper sized thighs start...

Currently an alias seems more appropriate, but I see what you want to state.
I supose your suggestion would be safer long-term if people start using the tag as you imagine, however if they don't we will just end up with one more unnecessary/redundant tag.

redundancy is easier to phase out they cleaning up a tag of 2 different contents thru...

As you said "udders are a subset of teats"; if someone really wants to see teats but not udders, then he/she/it may search for 'teats -udders'. The alias in question wouldn't prevent the search system of working.

um mind you, "teats -udders" will no longer work if you alias them together:?

But the size of hips is measured according their width, how do hyper hips couldn't be considered wide, if the criteria used to define that them are "hyper" is justly their width?

For reference B.W.H Measurements(bust,waist,hip) count the circumference of the body not width. The hips are also not a line, they are three dimensional and have a depth, length(or height) as well as a width.

Ruku said:
I admit i wasnt prepared to anwser considering hips and thigh are not really something i take interest in thru id did find this post #1237439 fairly clear where their hips end on its left and its hyper sized thighs start...

Well, you have proved your point, there is/are post(s) that would fit in 'hyper_tights' but wouldn't fit in 'hyper_hips'. I sincerely do not believe this fact overcomes the almost full overlapping of those tags, but the final decision isn't up to me.

Ruku said:
um mind you, "teats -udders" will no longer work if you alias them together:?

The alias in discussion is 'hyper_udders → hyper_teats'; other tags like 'teats' and 'udders' wouldn't be affected, hence could be used normally.

p.s. what does ":?" means?

Ruku said:
For reference B.W.H Measurements(bust,waist,hip) count the circumference of the body not width. The hips are also not a line, they are three dimensional and have a depth, length(or height) as well as a width.

This system doesn't apply in the current subject. This kind of measurement uses circumference because it serves to create specific garments (which need such information because their are made to cotour the body).

In terms of actual hip size, the most relevant measure is the width. However if we take in consideration the context of this site the only relevant measure would be width.

O16 said:
p.s. what does ":?" means?

Probably a typo. Those characters are on adjacent keys.