The tag implication #38838 balls_outline -> detailed_bulge has been rejected.

Reason: A bulge being detailed enough to include balls_outline should imply detailed_bulge.

EDIT: The tag implication balls_outline -> detailed_bulge (forum #310500) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

You can use a BUR next time to lump your tag suggestions all together (topic #29655, topic #29656).
Also, please provide a reason for your suggestions.

I've added a reason to all three, I didn't before because I was in a rush to make them before I forgot, then go off and do something else
As for not using the bulk version, I took one look at it and noped back to the normal one because I couldn't immediately tell how to use it
(yes, I see how to use it now)

I feel that detailed_bulge should only be used when the entirety of the genital outline can be seen.

For example, post #893871 would be a good example of detailed_bulge and balls_outline, while post #2760631 would not be a good example of detailed_bulge while still having balls_outline.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I feel that detailed_bulge should only be used when the entirety of the genital outline can be seen.

For example, post #893871 would be a good example of detailed_bulge and balls_outline, while post #2760631 would not be a good example of detailed_bulge while still having balls_outline.

From the wiki:

When a bulge is detailed enough to distinguish either a penis, sheath, or individual balls.

That second example would count, since the penis is distinguishable, if barely.

That second one barely counts as a balls_outline
I'm not really sure it does at all, there's not really a noticeable outline or separation at all

Oh. I added it. Man I contradict myself a lot. I should stop doing tag editing when I'm tired as hell.

It definitely has penis_outline, but not so sure about balls_outline

watsit said:
From the wiki:
That second example would count, since the penis is distinguishable, if barely.

I'm suggesting redefining detailed_bulge because at this stage it seems redundant to keep as a tag.
The 'detailed' part of it becomes misleading when you consider both post #2760631 & post #534751 are going to be tagged as detailed_bulge following this implication.

If anything, I feel that implying them with bulge would be more sensible, considering penis_outline is already implicated with bulge.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I'm suggesting redefining detailed_bulge because at this stage it seems redundant to keep as a tag.

I'm not sure. Sometimes "detailed" means "not simple/basic". A basic crotch bulge is just a lump, whereas if you can make out individual parts of the crotch, being the penis in this case, or separate testicles, it is more detailed than a basic bulge. See also detailed_background, which is any background detailed enough to place the scene in a clearly defined location... this includes relatively simple backgrounds, so long as it's detailed enough to be a "clearly defined location" (e.g. a beach).

watsit said:
I'm not sure. Sometimes "detailed" means "not simple/basic". A basic crotch bulge is just a lump, whereas if you can make out individual parts of the crotch, being the penis in this case, or separate testicles, it is more detailed than a basic bulge. See also detailed_background, which is any background detailed enough to place the scene in a clearly defined location... this includes relatively simple backgrounds, so long as it's detailed enough to be a "clearly defined location" (e.g. a beach).

I don't know about that part, I would not have considered post #2763968 to be detailed_background since it basically makes it impossible to differentiate between the more detailed posts. An argument could be made that amazing_background is the proper tag to use, but I disagree with how "detailed" means to not be "simple/basic".

Yet seeing at the detailed tag itself, it is defined as beings posts with "fairly high quality, sometimes so high that it's difficult to discern art from photography from a distance."

So, the term "detailed" in this case here is really subjective.

I'm going to reject these for the time being.

It is possible to have a detailed_bulge without having individual genital outlines visible.
After all, the definition of that tag only requires that the bulge is more detailed than just an amorphous blob.

Genital_outline serves the purpose of being an umbrella tag for various types of bulge outlines, although it also includes pussy_outline.
It might be beneficial to have an umbrella tag for just the male genital outlines. But detailed_bulge isn't it.

The tag implication balls_outline -> detailed_bulge (forum #310500) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

bitwolfy said:
It is possible to have a detailed_bulge without having individual genital outlines visible.
After all, the definition of that tag only requires that the bulge is more detailed than just an amorphous blob.=

Question: Did you write this post after reading the detailed_bulge wiki page, which was edited to the definition you cite here by none other than OP of this thread, one month before you posted? The previous "definition" did indeed require individual genital outlines to be visible. What's stranger is that that version of the page was also written by OP, just 15 minutes before creating this thread.

At this point I'm not sure what the purpose of keeping detailed_bulge around as a tag is at all, since OP has been systematically depopulating the search results for bulge -detailed_bulge for some months now. One wonders exactly what would be considered unworthy of an Explicit rating lock if the likes of my avatar are too detailed for the humble Questionable rating.