Topic: Tag Implication: big_penis -> huge_penis

***Edit

I think I have the implication reversed, sorry! Still...

Now when I try and suggest the correct huge_penis -> big_penis, the forum gives me an error and says the implication already exists. This is not the case in both the tags and the wiki, it seems. Is the implication already in place, or no?

gaphiltfish said:
Now when I try and suggest the correct huge_penis -> big_penis, the forum gives me an error and says the implication already exists. This is not the case in both the tags and the wiki, it seems. Is the implication already in place, or no?

Are you sure you're suggesting an implication and not an alias?

-A hundred.
This would essentially merge the two tags, and we need em' separate. Even if only to have a stepping-stone between big and hyper.

Peekaboo said:
-A hundred.
This would essentially merge the two tags, and we need em' separate. Even if only to have a stepping-stone between big and hyper.

All of the other tags imply it the ot her way around, though. Hyper -> Huge -> Big

knotty_curls -> huge_penis

Furrin_Gok said:
Are you sure you're suggesting an implication and not an alias?

Definitely an implication.

Peekaboo said:
-A hundred.
This would essentially merge the two tags, and we need em' separate. Even if only to have a stepping-stone between big and hyper.

Yep. What I am referring to is a matching issue of implications, not aliases. huge_balls implies big_balls, huge_breasts implies big_breasts, so huge_penis should imply big_penis.

Does this implication request submission need to be deleted in order to submit a new implication request in the correct order?

gaphiltfish said:
Does this implication request submission need to be deleted in order to submit a new implication request in the correct order?

Moderators can do that for you.