Implicating micro_balls → balls
Link to implication

Reason:

Also Implicate
small_balls -> balls
huge_balls -> balls
hyper_balls -> balls

Remove Implications

hyper_balls -> huge_balls
huge_balls -> big_balls

EDIT: The tag implication micro_balls -> balls (forum #205108) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

-1. I'd say imply them in a chain, micro -> small -> balls

Furrin_Gok said:
-1. I'd say imply them in a chain, micro -> small -> balls

Concerning the chain and why its bad forum #204705

To be honest both ways have equal advantages and disadvantages but its time to remove the inconsistency, ether all get chained or none, cant leave it at half this half that.

Ruku said:
Concerning the chain and why its bad forum #204705

To be honest both ways have equal advantages and disadvantages but its time to remove the inconsistency, ether all get chained or none, cant leave it at half this half that.

Chaining it is the only way to be consistent, since everything else is already chained.

Furrin_Gok said:
Chaining it is the only way to be consistent, since everything else is already chained.

Or, we could unchain everything, that would also be consistent.

Chessax said:
Or, we could unchain everything, that would also be consistent.

I'd love to unchain everything...

parasprite said:
I'd love to unchain everything...

And why don't you do it, people have been arguing that Chaining everything together in a path is creating a mess for searching specific sizes but non the less nothing is being done to stop the mess from getting even bigger. As far as I'm aware this has been going on and debated over sence e621 was restarted...

bumping this since after admins/staff and contributors to this site have been repeatably complaining about the tags sets in regards to genitalia size being chained together, why there still in the past 8 months nothing at all has been done about it and to stop the mess from getting ever bigger.

This also goes for penis and breast wikis that seem to have been unresolved for over 2 year now, cant leave it that way forever.

Ruku said:
bumping this since after admins/staff and contributors to this site have been repeatably complaining about the tags sets in regards to genitalia size being chained together, why there still in the past 8 months nothing at all has been done about it and to stop the mess from getting ever bigger.

This also goes for penis and breast wikis that seem to have been unresolved for over 2 year now, cant leave it that way forever.

I would be complaining that they weren't, because I don't want to have to search for several tags just because I want to see anything above normal sized. Blacklisting is a lot easier than searching, and allows a lot more tags.
On the other hand, when excluding, you only need to add one extra tag, not several. You search for the base size and then exclude the size beyond what you want.

Furrin_Gok said:
I would be complaining that they weren't, because I don't want to have to search for several tags just because I want to see anything above normal sized. Blacklisting is a lot easier than searching, and allows a lot more tags.
On the other hand, when excluding, you only need to add one extra tag, not several. You search for the base size and then exclude the size beyond what you want.

I had an idea.

Suggested implication tree:

• balls
• oversized_balls¹
• big_balls
• huge_balls
• hyper_balls
• undersized_balls¹
• small_balls
• micro_balls

This way anyone could search either for a specific size or for a size category as he/she/it wants; Everyone gets happy (theoretically).

¹ The names may be altered if necessary.

No nano balls? I is disappoint!

Furrin_Gok said:
-1. I'd say imply them in a chain, micro -> small -> balls

that reminds me of the issue we already have with hyper_balls. if you tag something as hyper_balls then big_balls gets added yet those are clearly 2 different size ranges. and with your suggestion the same problem would happen in reverse sizes.

ah, come to think of it. does that big/hyper issue happen with penis and pussy tags as well? if so, we may as well clear those up while we're at it.

O16 said:
I had an idea.

Suggested implication tree:

• balls
• oversized_balls¹
• big_balls
• huge_balls
• hyper_balls
• undersized_balls¹
• small_balls
• micro_balls

This way anyone could search either for a specific size or for a size category as he/she/it wants; Everyone gets happy (theoretically).

¹ The names may be altered if necessary.

It didn't work when I suggested basically the same thing 6 months ago. They're not gonna change their minds now.

BlueDingo said:
It didn't work when I suggested basically the same thing 6 months ago. They're not gonna change their minds now.

I) Sorry I didn't intend to "steal" your idea, just wasn't awaer that you already had made a similar suggestion.

II) it is possible that them hadn't noticed your post.

III) possibly the usage of 'large_x' as umbrella tag wouldn't work, 'large' is a synonym of 'big'; that is why I suggested "oversized".

O16 said:
I) Sorry I didn't intend to "steal" your idea, just wasn't awaer that you suggested it, previously.

II) it is possible that them hadn't noticed your post.

III) possibly the usage of 'large_x' as umbrella tag wouldn't wotk, 'large' is a synonym of 'big'; that is why I suggested "oversized".

I) You don't need to apologize. There's no rule against coming up with same idea as someone else.

II) I highly doubt the guys I was arguing with at the time or the one who posted after that missed it.

III) The specific words used won't matter. They'll say no regardless.