The tag implication #38579 hyper_teats -> big_teats has been rejected.

Reason: Larger size difference for "teats"; some characters who are tagged with "hyper_teats" are not also equipped with the "teats" tag, one of which I fixed earlier. It makes sense to implicate "big_teats" as it seems to be the next level of size denomination regarding teats, "huge_teats" being an alias for "big_teats", as opposed to, for example, "big_breasts" and "huge_breasts" which are their own tags and have their own definitions.

EDIT: The tag implication hyper_teats -> big_teats (forum #309391) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1745 (forum #) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

Genuinely asking, would it be better to unalias huge_teats from big_teats?

strikerman said:
Genuinely asking, would it be better to unalias huge_teats from big_teats?

I think that would make sense, and then make huge_teats implicate big_teats rather than be aliased to it, and make hyper_teats implicate huge_teats.

This would make it fit with how hyper/huge/big breasts/balls/penis are all implicated, with hyper implicating huge which implicates big.