Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The tag implication #67759 balls_inflation -> balls_expansion has been rejected.
Reason: if the balls are inflating, they are naturally also expanding
EDIT: The tag implication balls_inflation -> balls_expansion (forum #453649) has been rejected by @spe.
Updated by auto moderator
Sounds like it should be an alias. What would be the functional difference? balls_inflation has no wiki, but ball_inflation says
ball_inflation refers to the expansion of a character balls due to air, gasses, liquids, or other substances.
which is basically what balls_expansion says:
Tagged when balls are expanding in size
It seems like balls_inflation and ball_inflation should be aliased to balls_expansion.
watsit said:
Sounds like it should be an alias. What would be the functional difference? balls_inflation has no wiki, but ball_inflation says
which is basically what balls_expansion says:
It seems like balls_inflation and ball_inflation should be aliased to balls_expansion.
I made two versions of this post, one for balls_inflation -> balls_expansion and the other for ball_inflation -> balls_expansion. (https://e621.net/forum_topics/57443)
Reason being i made an earlier post called Tag alias: balls_inflation -> ball_inflation or ball_inflation -> balls_inflation (https://e621.net/forum_topics/57442). and I don't know how that is going to go.
Also no it shouldn't be an alias since not all ball expansion is ball inflation but all ball inflation is ball expansion.
Ball inflation implies the balls are filling with something while ball expansion only requires that the balls be growing, regardless of how it happens.
rubberduckydj said:
also no it shouldn't be an alias since not all ball expansion is ball inflation but all ball inflation is ball expansion.
Can you show an instance of ball expansion that isn't ball inflation? These are the first four results of balls_expansion -ball_inflation:
post #5603437 post #5602395 post #5601631 post #5599865
but I'm not really seeing a distinction from these ball_inflation results:
post #5601842 post #5480922 post #5240860
The main difference I can see is that you can more often, though not always, see a cause in ball_inflation. Certainly from the names, there's nothing to indicate a difference since expand and inflate are synonyms, so it's likely people are using the tags interchangeably. If it's meant to be used only when you can see something being put into the balls to cause them to expand/inflate, it should be given a name reflective of that.
watsit said:
Can you show an instance of ball expansion that isn't ball inflation? These are the first four results of balls_expansion -ball_inflation:
post #5603437 post #5602395 post #5601631 post #5599865
but I'm not really seeing a distinction from these ball_inflation results:
post #5601842 post #5480922 post #5240860
The main difference I can see is that you can more often, though not always, see a cause in ball_inflation. Certainly from the names, there's nothing to indicate a difference since expand and inflate are synonyms, so it's likely people are using the tags interchangeably. If it's meant to be used only when you can see something being put into the balls to cause them to expand/inflate, it should be given a name reflective of that.
The first, fourth and fifth images are ball expansion but not ball inflation.
the fifth image is mistagged.
Here's some other examples of balls expanding and not inflating
https://e621.net/posts/5436762?q=balls_expansion+-ball_inflation
https://e621.net/posts/5435312?q=balls_expansion+-ball_inflation
Also while inflation and expansion are synonyms, they do not have the same definition.
To inflate means to fill while to expand means to become larger or more extensive.
Here's the wiki pages for both tags to back up this point.
https://e621.net/wiki_pages/46686
https://e621.net/wiki_pages/12435
Updated
For it to be inflated it has to be shown/heavily-implied that something is being inserted to cause the growth
The tag implication balls_inflation -> balls_expansion (forum #453649) has been rejected by @spe.
