The tag implication #46614 giga_macro -> macro has been rejected.

Reason: giga_macro content is a subset of macro content

EDIT: The tag implication giga_macro -> macro (forum #342630) has been rejected by @slyroon.

ilovemacros said:
Reason: giga_macro content is a subset of macro content

How does giga_macro differ from mega_macro or macro? Perhaps it should be aliased?

watsit said:
How does giga_macro differ from mega_macro or macro? Perhaps it should be aliased?

Same reasoning as for topic #34998. giga_macro is another scale category (bigger than mega_macro and smaller than terra_macro).

There's already a giga tag with 1276 posts compared to giga_macro's 35. I do prefer the name giga_macro though, since it's actually more descriptive.

faucet said:
There's already a giga tag with 1276 posts compared to giga_macro's 35. I do prefer the name giga_macro though, since it's actually more descriptive.

The issue with giga is that it seems to be used as a catchall tag for all macro sizes beyond "vanilla" macro (so anything from mega_macro beyond). One could argue that we could just keep giga and alias all the other scale labels to it, but I think that would be loosing valuable filtering granularity. There's also a precedent for keeping different "size" labels around (see big_penis, huge_penis, hyper_penis).

watsit said:
How does giga_macro differ from mega_macro or macro? Perhaps it should be aliased?

Neither giga-macro or mega-macro are defined (nor is "tera-macro"), and I can't find any consistent differences of scale between how the former two tags are used. giga already exists, and is pretty clear in how it differs from standard macro sized characters.

Compare these three, is there any discernible difference that isn't splitting hairs?
post #1985542 "macro"
post #3523813 "mega-macro"
post #3416544 "giga-macro" (this just seems like macro, this wouldn't fall under giga)

Granularity between a character that is larger than a building, a character larger than a whole city, and a character as large as, or larger than a planet makes sense to me... but we don't necessarily need to invent new tags for that. We already have interplanetary macro which could be used for the larger side of giga, and landscape dwarfing for the "smaller" side of giga (unless landscape dwarfing specifically requires the macro character to take up most of the scene), both have the benefit of being far more descriptive than "mega" or "tera".

hungrymaple said:
Granularity between a character that is larger than a building, a character larger than a whole city, and a character as large as, or larger than a planet makes sense to me... but we don't necessarily need to invent new tags for that. We already have interplanetary macro which could be used for the larger side of giga, and landscape dwarfing for the "smaller" side of giga (unless landscape dwarfing specifically requires the macro character to take up most of the scene), both have the benefit of being far more descriptive than "mega" or "tera".

I think that's a fair point. Tags like interplanetary_macro and landscape_dwarfing are more descriptive and way more approachable to people who are not super familiar with the macro community. I've only suggested the three prefixes since they are the common nomenclature in the macro part of the fandom. Additionally, they give a "sense of subcategories", much like huge_penis is clearly a subcategory of big_penis, which is a subcategory of penis. As I said, the definitions for the three are fuzzy (as are big_penis, huge_penis, hyper_penis and others). For some proof of the nomenclature being in use see here, here or here (in the tags). The only category e6 really has is giga at the moment, f-list uses the term "Mega Macro" for the same category of content.

If we're going to keep these other stages and implicate them, it should be through a chain, shouldn't it? Giga_macro -> Mega_macro -> Macro

Revisiting this, I think aliasing giga to giga macro might be a good idea, because it would be consistent with terra macro, and it immediately connects giga with being a subset of macro.

The tag implication giga_macro -> macro (forum #342630) has been rejected by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #8031 is pending approval.

create alias giga_macro (15) -> giga (1934)

Reason: Giga_macro might be more descriptive rather than giga, but i'm fine with keeping it as giga (mirroring micro and nano)

Maybe that should be flipped? Next step up, terra macro has the 'macro' in the name, and I'm not sure if 'giga' by itself is sufficiently obvious. While micro and macro are established for this usage, same could hardly be said about giga.

I preferred the old planetary macro for the former, btw. Terra macro is misuse of 'terra', as that's Latin for land instead of planet... and 'planetary' was more obvious.