The bulk update request #5338 is active.

remove implication penis_outline (19614) -> bulge (153759)
create implication penis_outline (19614) -> detailed_bulge (29825)
create implication sheath_outline (797) -> detailed_bulge (29825)
(unimplicate sheath_outline -> bulge excluded because it doesn't exist)

Reason: This has been previously denied a good year and a half ago. I brought it up internally, and the general consensus was that there was no memory of it, and no one felt particularly strong either way.

topic #29654 (discussion is here)
topic #29655
topic #29656

Full disclosure: I wrote the detailed bulge wiki, and have been the main pioneer of the tag's current direction.

As I see it currently, this tag is being used by myself and others to describe any bulge which is more than a spherical lump, such as:
post #3890028

This bulge clearly has distinct sections, but neither are particularly an outline of anything. We can't tell what the upper half is exactly. It's most likely a sheath, but the clothing is covering that up, so no outline tag can be added there. Neither of the balls are distinct, so this isn't a balls outline either. With this definition, any of the outlines for male genitalia (balls outline, penis outline, sheath outline) would also be detailed bulges.

The "detailed" part is just the name we have right now, if you have a better name for this tag, feel free to suggest it.

You can find more examples under detailed_bulge -genital_outline, though this currently needs some cleanup. In the past I've been overzealous with the application of this tag, so a more strict definition when it comes to distinct parts may be in order. Additionally, if you feel I've locked anything as explicit which shouldn't be in the past, feel free to bring it up directly to me, and I'll try to get it sorted out. As I've said, I have made mistakes, like with post #2724486.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5338 (forum #372914) has failed: Implication for balls_outline not found

EDIT: The bulk update request #5338 (forum #372914) has failed: Implication for balls_outline not found

EDIT: The bulk update request #5338 (forum #372914) has been approved by @slyroon.

You're kind of obsessed with bulges my friend

versperus said:
You're kind of obsessed with bulges my friend

Bulges are indeed my specialty

versperus said:
You're kind of obsessed with bulges my friend

donovan_dmc said:
Bulges are indeed my specialty

There's an art to drawing the male bulge. It's a more complicated (but equally pleasing) shape than that of female breasts, and requires a balancing act between insufficient and excessive detail. It's important that it be clear that it's a penis and testicles under there while still leaving something to the imagination.

donovan_dmc said:
You can find more examples under detailed_bulge -genital_outline, though this currently needs some cleanup. In the past I've been overzealous with the application of this tag, so a more strict definition when it comes to distinct parts may be in order. Additionally, if you feel I've locked anything as explicit which shouldn't be in the past, feel free to bring it up directly to me, and I'll try to get it sorted out. As I've said, I have made mistakes, like with post #2724486.

Well, I guess I might as well quote from the ticket I opened for post #3149976 ages ago since it also functions as my contribution to this thread:

If you can't explain what is detailed in the bulge, don't tag it as detailed_bulge

donovan_dmc said:
...This has been previously denied a good year and a half ago. I brought it up internally, and the general consensus was that there was no memory of it, and no one felt particularly strong either way.

here's the old implication request, including the reason it got denied.

siral_exan said:
here's the old implication request, including the reason it got denied.

I'm well aware, I specifically mentioned the old topic in the BUR above, and asked within internal staff channels, no one has any strong opinions either way currently, so resuggesting was a valid option

donovan_dmc said:
I'm well aware, I specifically mentioned the old topic in the BUR above, and asked within internal staff channels, no one has any strong opinions either way currently, so resuggesting was a valid option

i see what you mean. i thought you meant that there was no discussion about this, and the implication was just denied for no reason, so i went to see if i could find one. i'm too used to King Dice's shenanigans and didn't think to check if i was correct.

Thinking of voting meh, on above BUR (5338). (mainly because the wikis seem to be saying an outline isn't necessarily big enough to be a bulge)

Woke up early and wandered across various tags at bulge that i didn't notice before (or forgot){, and while i don't think i got a headache...i think i got some brain-strain}.

Initial brain-strain from being unsure what difference between detailed_bulge and genital_outline ,
my conclusion (for now) is difference is a genital_outline can be small enough to not be considered bulge (since only outline tag that implies to bulge is penis_outline).

Have a suggested change for bulge wiki:
currently bulge wiki includes "genital_outline - When the shape of the entire genitals are clearly defined, rather than being an amorphous lump."
my only objection is to the word "entire",
perhaps change "entire genitals" TO something like "one-or-more of a character's genitals" (since a balls_outline can be easy to figure out, BUT an ambiguous 2nd genital outline could be a sheath_outline or a flaccid penis_outline)

(i've seen genital outlines that could be a sheath outline or a flaccid outline)

listerthesquirrel said:
Thinking of voting meh, on above BUR (5338). (mainly because the wikis seem to be saying an outline isn't necessarily big enough to be a bulge)

Woke up early and wandered across various tags at bulge that i didn't notice before (or forgot){, and while i don't think i got a headache...i think i got some brain-strain}.

Initial brain-strain from being unsure what difference between detailed_bulge and genital_outline ,
my conclusion (for now) is difference is a genital_outline can be small enough to not be considered bulge (since only outline tag that implies to bulge is penis_outline).

Have a suggested change for bulge wiki:
currently bulge wiki includes "genital_outline - When the shape of the entire genitals are clearly defined, rather than being an amorphous lump."
my only objection is to the word "entire",
perhaps change "entire genitals" TO something like "one-or-more of a character's genitals" (since a balls_outline can be easy to figure out, BUT an ambiguous 2nd genital outline could be a sheath_outline or a flaccid penis_outline)

(i've seen genital outlines that could be a sheath outline or a flaccid outline)

Genital outlines of male genitalia are always bulges, if it isn't noticeable enough to be a bulge, it certainly isn't a genital outline.
detailed bulge is meant to be an umbrella tag for those male genitalias - penis outline, balls outline, and sheath outline, as well as containing some bulges which while still a bulge, are not a genital outline.
post #4524829 for instance - there's clearly two defined sections here. is the top one a penis? Most likely, but it's hardly a penis outline. Is the bottom a pair of balls? Most definitely, but there's no real outline to them. Thus, it cannot be tagged as any genital outline. Detailed bulge comes in here.

The bulk update request #5338 (forum #372914) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6504 is active.

create implication balls_outline (10404) -> detailed_bulge (29825)

Reason: Last missing implications (penis outline and sheath outline implications both exist)

EDIT: The bulk update request #6504 (forum #390477) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6504 (forum #390477) has been approved by @slyroon.