The bulk update request #2533 is pending approval.

remove implication micro_on_macro (28) -> micro (22579)
remove implication micro_on_macro (28) -> macro (35875)
remove implication micro_on_macro (28) -> size_difference (344492)
create alias micro_on_macro (28) -> extreme_size_difference (15954) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
mass update micro_on_macro -> extreme_size_difference
create implication extreme_size_difference (15954) -> size_difference (344492)

Reason: As I have talked about earlier here: https://e621.net/forum_topics/33545

We have some "minor" issues with tons of images being incorrectly tagged as micro and macro even if these tags aren't applicable to the image. And the micro_on_macro tag seems to be a culprit since it auto implies both micro and macro.

From the micro_on_macro wiki: (problem is in bold)

It is worth noting that, size being a relative concept, it is not strictly necessary for the smaller character to technically fall under the purview of micro, nor vice versa. The same effect can be achieved by juxtaposing an abnormally-sized character with a normally-sized one.

Since the micro_on_macro definition literally currently says that "there don't have to be a macro nor micro character in the image." Then it obviously shouldn't auto imply that there is a micro and macro character in the image.

Since the macro tag states:

Short for "macrophilia", a fetish based around the character(s) being gigantic in size.

While the micro tag states:

A character who is much smaller compared to average human size, typically less than a foot (30 cm) tall and often smaller.

Also, the micro wiki page should be updated to remove the whole:

...] Often accompanied by macro (if so, also tag size_difference). Note that neither character has to really be macro to e.g. get the micro_on_macro tag (and hence micro) since it is often impossible to determine which character, if any, is human-sized and which is larger/smaller.

Since this is literally talking about the micro_on_macro tag, and not about how and when to use the micro tag...

Macro and micro requires some context for the tags to be applicable in an image. Without context the image is just of a character of unknown size and therefore doesn't fit any of the two tags.

The micro_on_macro tag is about the more extreme sides of size difference, similar to how giga is an extreme of macro, and nano is of micro.
Therefore I think it is apt to rename micro_on_macro to what it actually is, ie extreme_size_difference. (and this surprisingly is a tag who's wiki effectively says "don't use this".....)

The tag is just bad, the article is poorly written and the name is too specific for what it's trying to describe. It makes no sense for 90% of the posts tagged as micro_on_macro which feature a normal sized character interacting with an abnormally large/small character.

Changing the tag or aliasing it to extreme_size_difference makes the most amount of sense to me too, an image that is size_difference macro or size_difference micro could mean there are two macro or two micro sized characters that are of varying scales, so merely using size_difference isn't specific enough. My only issue is that I'm not sure if it should be updated, or aliased, I'm willing to write a wiki entry for it, and take feedback here, but I don't know if an update would overwrite it.

Tangentially, the macro and micro tags are badly misapplied and badly defined (probably partially due to the implications of micro on macro), they're constantly used together, making them essentially synonymous, which is useless, and they need some cleanup. Ideally, macro should describe a giant sized character, while micro should describe a shrunken, tiny character, most posts shouldn't be tagged as both macro and micro, barring exceptions where a character is shown at varying scales, or where there's an extreme size difference and no way to tell which character is intended to abnormally sized (say two extremely size... differenced, characters depicted in a white void), my bias would be to use micro and assume the larger character is "normal", but it's open to interpretation.

nystemy said:
Therefore I think it is apt to rename micro_on_macro to what it actually is, ie extreme_size_difference.

If you're wanting to outright rename the tag, you should probably remove all of micro_on_macro's implications and aliases, so that they can all be redirected to extreme_size_difference (and micro_on_macro should probably be aliased to it in that case as well). A mass update won't stop people from using micro_on_macro as a separate tag, it'll just move all of its current posts to extreme_size_difference.

This all assuming, of course, that that's the route that gets accepted (and I'm not just misunderstanding things). I do agree the micro and macro tags are a mess and something needs to be done about them, though.

vulkalu said:
If you're wanting to outright rename the tag, you should probably remove all of micro_on_macro's implications and aliases, so that they can all be redirected to extreme_size_difference (and micro_on_macro should probably be aliased to it in that case as well). A mass update won't stop people from using micro_on_macro as a separate tag, it'll just move all of its current posts to extreme_size_difference.

This all assuming, of course, that that's the route that gets accepted (and I'm not just misunderstanding things). I do agree the micro and macro tags are a mess and something needs to be done about them, though.

Now that I know what "update" does, thanks to your post, I think the better way of doing this is to...

• remove the "mass update" from the BUR
• keep the implication removals
• In a separate request, alias micro_on_macro to extreme_size_difference, I think the alias can be linked to this thread rather than making a new thread? It might have to be done in a BUR for that to work.

Considering it wasn't a janitor or admin who created the "don't use this tag" message for extreme size difference(for no apparent reason), it's probably safe to disregard, change the article, and start using the tag.

Considering Nystemy's other thread on the clear issues with macro, micro etc related tags, I have some suggestions for can be done to fix these tags (I'm willing to help out and do much of the work, I have the ability to use tag scripting, which makes duplicate post changes faster, and have written/edited way too many wiki pages). We're probably going to need a new thread in Wiki/Tag Projects for this "project" to have some discussion, rather than going off on a tangent in a BUR thread...

nystemy said:
The bulk update request #2533 is pending approval.

remove implication micro_on_macro (28) -> micro (22579)
remove implication micro_on_macro (28) -> macro (35875)
remove implication micro_on_macro (28) -> size_difference (344492)
create alias micro_on_macro (28) -> extreme_size_difference (15954) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
mass update micro_on_macro -> extreme_size_difference
create implication extreme_size_difference (15954) -> size_difference (344492)

I would prefer:

Followed by:

I was actually going to suggest something like this but never got around to it, not only because macro and micro are so messy as tags, but also because feral characters that are naturally very small/large doing sex with characters that are much larger or smaller than them but still not technically macro or micro (see: hsowa)

scaliespe said:
I would prefer:

unimply micro_on_macro -> micro unimply micro_on_macro -> macro unimply micro_on_macro -> size_difference unalias macro/micro -> micro_on_macro unalias micro/macro -> micro_on_macro unalias macro_on_micro -> micro_on_macro

Followed by:

alias micro_on_macro -> extreme_size_difference alias macro/micro -> extreme_size_difference alias micro/macro -> extreme_size_difference alias macro_on_micro -> extreme_size_difference imply extreme_size_difference -> size_difference

That all makes sense to me, I don't think the final implication would cause any problems or flood the tag.

darryus said:
I was actually going to suggest something like this but never got around to it, not only because macro and micro are so messy as tags, but also because feral characters that are naturally very small/large doing sex with characters that are much larger or smaller than them but still not technically macro or micro (see: hsowa)

extreme size difference could cover that, but I'm not sure if it wouldn't be better under size difference seeing as both feral creatures are their natural sizes. Micro or Macro definitely wouldn't be the appropriate tags though.

hungrymaple said:
The tag is just bad, the article is poorly written and the name is too specific for what it's trying to describe. It makes no sense for 90% of the posts tagged as micro_on_macro which feature a normal sized character interacting with an abnormally large/small character.

Changing the tag or aliasing it to extreme_size_difference makes the most amount of sense to me too, an image that is size_difference macro or size_difference micro could mean there are two macro or two micro sized characters that are of varying scales, so merely using size_difference isn't specific enough. My only issue is that I'm not sure if it should be updated, or aliased, I'm willing to write a wiki entry for it, and take feedback here, but I don't know if an update would overwrite it.

Tangentially, the macro and micro tags are badly misapplied and badly defined (probably partially due to the implications of micro on macro), they're constantly used together, making them essentially synonymous, which is useless, and they need some cleanup. Ideally, macro should describe a giant sized character, while micro should describe a shrunken, tiny character, most posts shouldn't be tagged as both macro and micro, barring exceptions where a character is shown at varying scales, or where there's an extreme size difference and no way to tell which character is intended to abnormally sized (say two extremely size... differenced, characters depicted in a white void), my bias would be to use micro and assume the larger character is "normal", but it's open to interpretation.

Yes, the micro_on_macro tag is fairly abhorrently written and implemented at current.

vulkalu said:
If you're wanting to outright rename the tag, you should probably remove all of micro_on_macro's implications and aliases, so that they can all be redirected to extreme_size_difference (and micro_on_macro should probably be aliased to it in that case as well). A mass update won't stop people from using micro_on_macro as a separate tag, it'll just move all of its current posts to extreme_size_difference.

This all assuming, of course, that that's the route that gets accepted (and I'm not just misunderstanding things). I do agree the micro and macro tags are a mess and something needs to be done about them, though.

True. I think I will go with this suggestion bellow since it does that rather well:

scaliespe said:
I would prefer:

unimply micro_on_macro -> micro unimply micro_on_macro -> macro unimply micro_on_macro -> size_difference unalias macro/micro -> micro_on_macro unalias micro/macro -> micro_on_macro unalias macro_on_micro -> micro_on_macro

Followed by:

alias micro_on_macro -> extreme_size_difference alias macro/micro -> extreme_size_difference alias micro/macro -> extreme_size_difference alias macro_on_micro -> extreme_size_difference imply extreme_size_difference -> size_difference

However, I have noticed that "micro_on_macro" could technically also mean that a comparatively tiny character is standing/climbing a larger character, but I have seen exceptionally few images with this theme. And perhaps such a tag could just be "smaller_on_larger" or "smaller_climbing_larger" or something.

hungrymaple said:
Now that I know what "update" does, thanks to your post, I think the better way of doing this is to...

• remove the "mass update" from the BUR
• keep the implication removals
• In a separate request, alias micro_on_macro to extreme_size_difference, I think the alias can be linked to this thread rather than making a new thread? It might have to be done in a BUR for that to work.

Considering it wasn't a janitor or admin who created the "don't use this tag" message for extreme size difference(for no apparent reason), it's probably safe to disregard, change the article, and start using the tag.

Considering Nystemy's other thread on the clear issues with macro, micro etc related tags, I have some suggestions for can be done to fix these tags (I'm willing to help out and do much of the work, I have the ability to use tag scripting, which makes duplicate post changes faster, and have written/edited way too many wiki pages). We're probably going to need a new thread in Wiki/Tag Projects for this "project" to have some discussion, rather than going off on a tangent in a BUR thread...

I think the mass update part is still needed, since if we just alias micro_on_macro to extreme_size_difference, as to make it follow the actual thing the tag is, then all current images tagged micro_on_macro is overtime going to be changed to extreme_size_difference as people edit other tags on those images, so better to just update them all at the get go...

hungrymaple said:
In loose order, here are my suggestions:

• rewrite macro, micro, and any other related wiki pages as needed to make them clearer and specific
• macro should specify an "abnormally large" or "giant" character in a "normal sized" setting, smaller characters should be tagged as smaller_*, not as "micro"
• micro should specify an "abnormally small" or "tiny/shrunken" character in a normal sized setting, larger characters should only be tagged as larger_*, the wiki page shouldn't associate a larger character automatically with a macro one, and obviously references to size_difference and micro_on_macro should be cut
• I could do some rewrite "drafts" and share them in the forum for feedback, or just rewrite the pages, and other people can discuss/edit it as we go along
• create the extreme size difference wiki page

For retagging...

• sort through macro micro and retag posts as extreme_size_difference macro or extreme_size_difference micro as needed (with potential exceptions); post updates would need to remove micro_on_macro along with whichever size tag is incorrect because of the current (bad) tag implications. If you want to avoid being "destructive" towards micro_on_macro and want to wait on the alias to get rid of it, using macro micro -micro_on_macro could work around having to address it for now
• I'm on the fence about waiting on the alias to come through before starting on retagging, on one hand, getting approval on BURs and Aliases can take a very long time and even if/when micro_on_macro is aliased to extreme_size_difference, the incorrect size tag (micro or macro) would need to be removed. On the other hand, removing a currently "valid" tag (which just means it's a tag a lot of people have used, and technically is appropriate), and replacing it with a brand new one is probably frowned upon... although if the admins have concerns, it's all explainable, follows tagging guidelines and is clearly in good faith.

As talked about in the other thread I linked to in the first post.
I would personally suggest that the tags should be used in the following fashion:
Nano: The current Wiki description works fine.
Micro: A character that is more or less unrealistically small.
[Normal sized characters here]
Macro: A character that is unrealistically large.
Giga: The current Wiki description works fine. (I however think "city dwarfing" is a bit small on the macro scale for Giga to start here. Continent dwarfing is likely a more suitable start.)

All of the above does however require the image to include or otherwise indicate at what scale we are at. (just because we have two absurdly differently sized characters doesn't mean we have to tag micro or macro on the image.)
If a character falls between the cracks so to say, then we can use the two nearest tags. (unless the character is normally sized. And honestly, maybe that should be a tag? However only relevant for micro and macro art.)

Size_difference: When there is a noticeable size difference between the characters.
Extreme_size_difference: When the size difference is frankly comical or beyond. (Personally think beyond 10x in size difference is a good "lower end" for such a tag.)
(For the size_difference tags we also do not need to know what normal size is, since it is irrelevant.)

darryus said:
I was actually going to suggest something like this but never got around to it, not only because macro and micro are so messy as tags, but also because feral characters that are naturally very small/large doing sex with characters that are much larger or smaller than them but still not technically macro or micro (see: hsowa)

Yes, a lot of images gets tagged with "macro" when a character is just "a bit bigger than the others in the image." and this is frankly just muddling the macro tag with non macro content. And vice versa for the micro tag.
It is like tagging an image with quadropedal just because an anthro is standing on its knees with a hand on the floor.

hungrymaple said:
extreme size difference could cover that, but I'm not sure if it wouldn't be better under size difference seeing as both feral creatures are their natural sizes. Micro or Macro definitely wouldn't be the appropriate tags though.

it kinda depends on the situation, I guess...

hmm...
maybe extreme_size_difference isn't the best name, actually. macro_on_micro isn't really an extension of size_difference, size_difference can apply to any two or more characters, not just when they're interacting sexually/romantically. if we continued to use extreme_size_difference similar to how we had previously used macro_on_micro it'd be a bit inconsistent.

I think that macro_on_micro is more like a size_play subgenre.

darryus said:
it kinda depends on the situation, I guess...

hmm...
maybe extreme_size_difference isn't the best name, actually. macro_on_micro isn't really an extension of size_difference, size_difference can apply to any two or more characters, not just when they're interacting sexually/romantically. if we continued to use extreme_size_difference similar to how we had previously used macro_on_micro it'd be a bit inconsistent.

I think that macro_on_micro is more like a size_play subgenre.

size_difference wiki:

Use this for images or animations featuring at least two characters in which one character is noticeably bigger or smaller in body size than the other character. This may be applied to images in which the characters are not engaged in sexual activities.

(where one of the example images on the Wiki is a gigantic fox stuck in snow with a bystander just watching.)

size_play wiki:

Size play is when size difference is the main focus of an image or animation, often in a sexual manner.

So the extreme_size_difference tag implying that there is just an extreme size difference between two (or more) individuals in an image is therefore not inconsistent with size_difference. But would be inconsistent with size_play, but we could also make an extreme_size_play tag for those looking for sexual content of extreme_size_difference or one could search: extreme_size_difference rating:e

nystemy said:
size_difference wiki:
(where one of the example images on the Wiki is a gigantic fox stuck in snow with a bystander just watching.)

size_play wiki:
So the extreme_size_difference tag implying that there is just an extreme size difference between two (or more) individuals in an image is therefore not inconsistent with size_difference. But would be inconsistent with size_play, but we could also make an extreme_size_play tag for those looking for sexual content of extreme_size_difference or one could search: extreme_size_difference rating:e

yeah, but then we're kind of losing out on some of the specificity that macro_on_micro provided. macro_on_micro isn't just for characters existing in the same space, it's a pairing tag, like any other x_on_y or x/y tag.

darryus said:
yeah, but then we're kind of losing out on some of the specificity that macro_on_micro provided. macro_on_micro isn't just for characters existing in the same space, it's a pairing tag, like any other x_on_y or x/y tag.

Yes, I do know that "micro_ON_macro" is written like a lot of other tags where we have X_on_Y.
But the micro_on_macro wiki is implying a use for what effectively is extreme_size_difference.

A tag for having a small character on a much larger one is a useful tag, but currently a minority of the content in the micro_on_macro tag.

Secondly, one can always just search for the position of the other.
Though a tag of on_other should probably exist, for all situations a character is on another in any meaningful fashion.

We do not need tags for specific combinations of kinks.
Having one tag for a extreme_size_difference, and another tag for one (or more) character(s) being on another character is sufficient to find all the content of that kind.
ie, the proposed search would then be (if both tags existed): Extreme_size_difference on_other

(however, what should I say having made a tag for landscape_dwarfing macros)

darryus said:
yeah, but then we're kind of losing out on some of the specificity that macro_on_micro provided. macro_on_micro isn't just for characters existing in the same space, it's a pairing tag, like any other x_on_y or x/y tag.

If size_play describes characters of different sizes interacting sexually, wouldn't the solution here be to tag images with macro/normal or micro/normal characters in sexual contact as size_play along withextreme_size_difference? I don't think there's any specificity lost by aliasing away the tag when the usage of micro_on_macrohas completely drifted away from that intended specific meaning, micro_on_macro has become characters existing in the same space.

Bumping the thread to see if there's any consensus.

showmebruv said:
Bumping the thread to see if there's any consensus.

10 upvotes isn't much relative to the site's total userbase, but considering that a fraction of a fraction of e621 actually votes in this forum, it is unanimous, and there doesn't seem to be good reason not to go forward on this.

My only question would be what to do with tags like crushed_micros, in almost all of posts, the crushed people aren't "actually micro", they're being crushed by giants, crushed_character seems like it puts too much emphasis on those tiny, low detail figures in macro-created craters or little red splotches on a macro's foot. It's a distinct enough concept from a single character or a few characters being crushed, and who are actual characters not just simply drawn tiny crowds, which would fall under the type of crush tag (foot crush, butt crush and extreme size difference).

Maybe crushed_crowd, crushed_masses or mass_crush (in the spirit of mass vore)?

I think the micro_abuse tag could use some work that might be relevant to this BUR as well.

The article suffers from many of the same issues as micro_on_macro in that it uses the terms micro and macro as relative terms while the actual micro and macro tags refer in an absolute sense to characters who are unusually small or unusually large, respectively. That said, I do think the content that micro_abuse covers is worth having a tag for, since the broad array of "hard" size fetish content is pretty popular blacklist material. I'd like for people to be able to filter it out easily without having to do blacklist gymnastics if they still enjoy seeing gentler size-related stuff and also violent non-micro/macro stuff.

The BUR as it stands is great, though.

hungrymaple said:
Maybe crushed_crowd, crushed_masses or mass_crush (in the spirit of mass vore)?

I think these are great tag ideas. I favor mass_crush myself since it is the most open and avoids running situations where someone might not tag an image with, say, crowd but there's still an emphasis on some macro character going on a complete rampage on a bunch of indistinct silhouettes. Stuff like that.

As for the BUR itself, the alias micro_on_macro -> extreme_size_difference needs to be removed and added to a second BUR (which can be included in this thread) since you can't create an alias for a tag and remove its existing implications/aliases at the same time. You can also remove the update micro_on_macro -> extreme_size_difference since the alias will automatically update the tags, making that redundant.

ultra_ac20 said:
I think these are great tag ideas. I favor mass_crush myself since it is the most open and avoids running situations where someone might not tag an image with, say, crowd but there's still an emphasis on some macro character going on a complete rampage on a bunch of indistinct silhouettes. Stuff like that.

Went ahead and made mass crush, there aren't too many posts under it yet, and it needs to be added to relevant pages, but I'll make a note of fixing that later.

ultra_ac20 said:
I do think the content that micro_abuse covers is worth having a tag for, since the broad array of "hard" size fetish content is pretty popular blacklist material. I'd like for people to be able to filter it out easily without having to do blacklist gymnastics if they still enjoy seeing gentler size-related stuff and also violent non-micro/macro stuff.

Couldn't agree more _{although, as the writer, I might be a little biased}

There's a lot of size content that involves a much larger character having mean-spirited/cruel/aggressive/sexually exploitative interactions with much smaller characters, which doesn't neatly fit under popular tags like vore, living insertion, or crush AND posts that DO fall under those tags, but specifically put emphasis on the larger character being mean and cruel towards the smaller character(s). There are definitely people who want to find general "mean giant" content, and more importantly, people who may only want to see more SFW or gentle extreme size difference interactions, who otherwise need to have have dozens of tags added.

The article suffers from many of the same issues as micro_on_macro in that it uses the terms micro and macro as relative terms while the actual micro and macro tags refer in an absolute sense to characters who are unusually small or unusually large, respectively. That said,

My suggestion is "tiny abuse", "tiny" can be used relatively, it doesn't mean specifically micro, "tiny" isn't unheard of in macro/micro circles, and it pairs as an equal and opposite to gentle giant.

Bumping this, it's been over a year, and this BUR has unanimous approval. It would be nice to get rid of micro_on_macro once and for all.