The tag implication #64401 balls_on_tail -> balls has been approved.

Reason: Can’t have balls on a tail if there aren’t any balls

EDIT: The tag implication balls_on_tail -> balls (forum #415112) has been approved by @spe.

uhh hold on, this should implicate unusual ball placement first, so people dont have to blacklist every ball_on_* tags

dimoretpinel said:
uhh hold on, this should implicate unusual ball placement first, so people dont have to blacklist every ball_on_* tags

No it shouldn't, this is for balls resting on a tail.

regsmutt said:
No it shouldn't, this is for balls resting on a tail.

Could do with a better name, as it's easily misconstrued as ball placement instead of their resting place. What would the tag be for balls that are part of a character's tail?

watsit said:
Could do with a better name, as it's easily misconstrued as ball placement instead of their resting place. What would the tag be for balls that are part of a character's tail?

Tail_balls? Though that might be too close to the poorly-named tail_anus.

Also balls_on_* seems to be standard for balls-sitting-on a body part rather then growing-from a body part.

watsit said:
Could do with a better name, as it's easily misconstrued as ball placement instead of their resting place. What would the tag be for balls that are part of a character's tail?

Yeah, like Sis (Fyoshi). post #783487
This seems... a poor choice of tag names.

alphamule said:
Yeah, like Sis (Fyoshi). post #783487
This seems... a poor choice of tag names.

How is that a bad tag name? It follows the standard charactername_(characterowner) format. Any lack of clarity comes from the character and/or owner name, which you can't really do anything about.

regsmutt said:
How is that a bad tag name? It follows the standard charactername_(characterowner) format. Any lack of clarity comes from the character and/or owner name, which you can't really do anything about.

I think they were referring to the characters' tail_orbs. They meant balls_on_tail could sound like tail_orb.

Though, I'd argue the plurality "balls on tail" helps make it more clear that it's a tag about testicles, rather than an orb. I mean, if it were about tail_orbs, it would probably be ball_on_tail.

crocogator said:
I think they were referring to the characters' tail_orbs. They meant balls_on_tail could sound like tail_orb.

Though, I'd argue the plurality "balls on tail" helps make it more clear that it's a tag about testicles, rather than an orb. I mean, if it were about tail_orbs, it would probably be ball_on_tail.

That could probably be fixed with a shift from 'balls' to 'testicles' or 'scrotum'.

alias balls_on_tail -> testitails
alias ball_on_tail -> tail_orb
J/K

So this is what, several meanings? Testes lying on a tail, a literal ball sitting on a tail, a tail with a ball on the end, and a tail with testes on it.

It's a four page tag with no mistags. It follows the naming convention of similar tags. Even if all balls_on_* tags were to be renamed to testicles/scrotum_on_*, it'd still need to imply the balls tag.

Renaming balls would be a project since it has so many aliases and implications, I can't imagine anyone will be getting around to that for a while. At the very least, connecting this tag to it should help prevent it from being forgotten.

The tag implication balls_on_tail -> balls (forum #415112) has been approved by @spe.

Balls growing from a tail seems to be an extremely rare situation, so I doubt many mistags will be a result of that, and easily fixed if they are. The tag as it stands does seem to be pretty consistently tagged so far.