The bulk update request #5863 is pending approval.

create implication big_triceps (1) -> triceps (14400)
create implication big_deltoids (951) -> deltoids (5440)
create implication big_obliques (1) -> obliques (7045)
create implication big_trapezius (2) -> trapezius (558)
create implication huge_pecs (4161) -> pecs (202341)
create implication huge_triceps (2) -> triceps (14400)
create implication huge_deltoids (475) -> deltoids (5440)
create implication huge_obliques (1) -> obliques (7045)
create implication huge_triceps (2) -> triceps (14400)
create implication huge_trapezius (1) -> trapezius (558)

Reason: They are the larger size variations of the muscles.

I remember there being some discussion on reducing the number of specific muscle tags to more general groups. Though I don't have the thread at hand.

Also, size-related tags typically imply the lesser-size tag (e.g. imply huge_pecs -> big_pecs).

watsit said:
Also, size-related tags typically imply the lesser-size tag (e.g. imply huge_pecs -> big_pecs).

why do we do that anyway? when I search for big butt I'm typically not really looking for huge butt or hyper butt and I have to manually exclude them.

pleaseletmein said:
why do we do that anyway? when I search for big butt I'm typically not really looking for huge butt or hyper butt and I have to manually exclude them.

Other people might be. A huge butt is a big butt, so someone searching for big butts may not care exactly how big it is. There's also the issue that sizes are rather vague and subjective in art (how do you measure to separate "big" from "huge"?), so what one person may tag as big another may tag huge. Most people would end up having to search both anyway, and would only exclude specific tags when they're sure it doesn't have what they're looking for.