The tag alias #63527 humanoid_balls -> balls has been approved.

Reason: This has been tagged a whopping 9 times in the history of e621, yet has lots of aliases and implications. What does it even mean? Animals with internal testicles simply wouldn't get the balls tag, and the only other balls I can think of are marsupial_balls which are located above the penis and have their own tag. The vast, vast majority of balls look the same.

EDIT: The tag alias humanoid_balls -> balls (forum #372369) has been approved by @slyroon.

WTF is this eve--- OK, yeah, make sure humanoid_balls -humanoid and humanoid_balls humanoid results make sense, then kick this tag to the uhm other tag.

BTW, this has implications that need to be checked.

post #4071556 Is that even humanoid?

So if this goes through balls will imply humanoid_genitalia?

waydence said:
So if this goes through balls will imply humanoid_genitalia?

I wasn't sure how the implication moves work for aliases - I thought the implications would just be automatically removed. I can reject this and make a BUR if that's not the case

cloudpie said:
I wasn't sure how the implication moves work for aliases - I thought the implications would just be automatically removed. I can reject this and make a BUR if that's not the case

If I understand correctly, aliases through request alias bring along relations, while doing it through a BUR doesn't.

cloudpie said:
I wasn't sure how the implication moves work for aliases - I thought the implications would just be automatically removed. I can reject this and make a BUR if that's not the case

If alias page is any indication, yeah, you'd have to make a BUR for this one.

The bulk update request #5307 has been rejected.

remove implication humanoid_balls (4) -> humanoid_genitalia (488939)

Reason: I thiiink it'll be ok as long as this one is approved first before the main alias?

EDIT: The bulk update request #5307 (forum #372385) has been rejected by @slyroon.

The tag alias humanoid_balls -> balls (forum #372369) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #5307 (forum #372385) has been rejected by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6363 is active.

remove implication humanoid_balls (4) -> balls (1056813)

Reason: humanoid_balls still implies balls

EDIT: The bulk update request #6363 (forum #388978) has been approved by @slyroon.

Uh, was it intentional to imply balls to humanoid_genitalia??

cloudpie said:
The bulk update request #5307 has been rejected.

remove implication humanoid_balls (4) -> humanoid_genitalia (488939)

Reason: I thiiink it'll be ok as long as this one is approved first before the main alias?

EDIT: The bulk update request #5307 (forum #372385) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Oh fuck. This one was supposed to be approved first

Ok this looks like an easy enough fix once the implication is removed. Humanoid_genitalia should be able to be safely removed from balls humanoid_genitalia -humanoid_penis -humanoid_pussy

The bulk update request #6365 is active.

remove implication balls (1056813) -> humanoid_genitalia (488939)

Reason: Implications carried over, balls should not imply humanoid genitalia.
Huh, the former still has more tags than the latter.

EDIT: The bulk update request #6365 (forum #389014) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

snpthecat said:
Huh, the former still has more tags than the latter.

I imagine it takes a while to change ~900,000 records in the database.

faucet said:
I imagine it takes a while to change ~900,000 records in the database.

And now we have the privilege of changing all of them back

snpthecat said:
And now we have the privilege of changing all of them back

I don't know if any admin tools exist for reversing implications, but we do at least have the db exports which could be used to figure out which posts have had humanoid_genitalia added to them since the previous db_export.

That would still leave us with a day's worth of uploads to manually fix, but it sure beats 16 years.

faucet said:
I don't know if any admin tools exist for reversing implications, but we do at least have the db exports which could be used to figure out which posts have had humanoid_genitalia added to them since the previous db_export.

That would still leave us with a day's worth of uploads to manually fix, but it sure beats 16 years.

Based on what I've seen in the codebase, all alias/implication/BUR changes should be logged and should be reversible. But I'm not sure how that works with aliases pulling over transitive implications since it's like a second layer deep.

The bulk update request #6365 (forum #389014) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

I think it can probably be pretty safely bulk removed from all posts in balls humanoid_genitalia -humanoid_penis -humanoid_pussy

I assume this is the reason humanoid_genitalia keeps appearing in my tag edits? balls doesn't imply humanoid_genitalia but anything that implies balls will (big_balls, bouncing_balls, backsack, etc.).

vitreousvice said:
I assume this is the reason humanoid_genitalia keeps appearing in my tag edits? balls doesn't imply humanoid_genitalia but anything that implies balls will (big_balls, bouncing_balls, backsack, etc.).

Yeah, even though the implication has been deleted it's still somehow getting implied by subtags. I guess it's some sort of caching issue, what a wonderful mess this has caused.

Previewing final tags for balls there's clearly nothing wrong:

balls
balls ⇒ genitals

Then huge_balls has the problem:

huge_balls
huge_balls ⇒ balls
huge_balls ⇒ big_balls
huge_balls ⇒ genitals
huge_balls ⇒ humanoid_genitalia

Attempting to manually remove humanoid_genitalia from the post doesn't help either - it just gets re-implied.

snpthecat said:
The bulk update request #6365 is active.

remove implication balls (1056813) -> humanoid_genitalia (488939)

Reason: Implications carried over, balls should not imply humanoid genitalia.
Huh, the former still has more tags than the latter.

EDIT: The bulk update request #6365 (forum #389014) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

what the hell, why was this ever an implication?

faucet said:
Yeah, even though the implication has been deleted it's still somehow getting implied by subtags. I guess it's some sort of caching issue, what a wonderful mess this has caused.

Previewing final tags for balls there's clearly nothing wrong:

balls
balls ⇒ genitals

Then huge_balls has the problem:

huge_balls
huge_balls ⇒ balls
huge_balls ⇒ big_balls
huge_balls ⇒ genitals
huge_balls ⇒ humanoid_genitalia

Attempting to manually remove humanoid_genitalia from the post doesn't help either - it just gets re-implied.

Yeah, there seem to be a bunch of tags related to this bur with that problem currently. A consequence of rejecting the implications before it finished, probably. I'm sure there's a race condition somewhere.

I will fix this later today when I'm at PC and seeing about undoing some of the damage this has done in general.

Edit: Implications fixed, heres the list of tags that were affected

10_balls
3_balls
4_balls
5_balls
6_balls
7_balls
8_balls
9_balls
auto_ball_lick
backsack
ball_fondling
ball_grab
ball_lick
ball_markings
ball_pregnancy
balls_above_penis
ball_size_difference
balls_on_face
balls_on_glass
ball_squish
balls_touching
ball_tattoo
barely_visible_balls
big_balls
black_balls
blue_balls
bouncing_balls
brown_balls
countershade_balls
cum_on_balls
cum_on_own_balls
darkened_balls
easter_balls
fluffy_balls
freckled_balls
furry_balls
fuzzy_balls
glistening_balls
glowing_balls
green_balls
grey_balls
hairy_balls
holding_balls
huge_balls
humanoid_balls
hyper_balls
lemon_testicles
lipstick_on_balls
marsupial_balls
micro_balls
monotone_balls
mottled_balls
multi_balls
non-mammal_balls
orange_balls
painted_balls
piebald_balls
precum_on_balls
purple_balls
red_balls
saggy_balls
scrotal_raphe
scrotal_ring
scrotum_ladder
scrotum_piercing
severed_balls
small_balls
spiked_balls
spotted_balls
standalone_balls
striped_balls
sweaty_balls
tan_balls
teal_balls
tight_balls
translucent_balls
transscrotal_piercing
uneven_balls
uniball
unusual_balls
veiny_balls
vibrator_on_balls
white_balls
yellow_balls

benjiboyo said:
what the hell, why was this ever an implication?

Because this thread did a normal alias request for humanoid_balls -> balls, which carried over transitives. humanoid_balls implied humanoid_genitalia, so when it was aliased to balls, the implication was changed with it so balls implied humanoid_genitalia.

watsit said:
Because this thread did a normal alias request for humanoid_balls -> balls, which carried over transitives. humanoid_balls implied humanoid_genitalia, so when it was aliased to balls, the implication was changed with it so balls implied humanoid_genitalia.

oh right. forgot about inherited implications

cloudpie said:
The bulk update request #5307 has been rejected.

remove implication humanoid_balls (4) -> humanoid_genitalia (488939)

Reason: I thiiink it'll be ok as long as this one is approved first before the main alias?

EDIT: The bulk update request #5307 (forum #372385) has been rejected by @slyroon.

I'm really sorry yall i thought this one would be done first :(
This bur was made before I understood how things worked, in hindsight i should have organized the thread better with the deimplication at the top and the alias not written until after, to avoid this kind of error

The bulk update request #6363 (forum #388978) has been approved by @slyroon.