Giant implications

BUR #3728 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication giant_male -> giant
create implication giantess -> giant

I have tried to populate and made a wiki for Giant_male after the discussion in forum #174072.
I think creating the implication is more reasonable now that male giants have their own tag.

BUR #3804 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication giant_monster -> giant
create implication giant_snake -> oversized_animal

A few more giant-related implications.

I'm skeptical about the giant_tree implication. All the other things we decided to tag giant are animate — if not necessarily sentient — beings like animals or monsters or mecha. Trees are living things, but they're also inanimate. Even when a giant tree is the focus of an image, it's more like a part of the scenery than a character. This implication is a step in the direction of tagging other enormous objects (sandwiches, for instance) as giant, and I'm not sure that it would be wise to go that far.

idk, if I'm looking for "giant" and not specifically for porn I typically want to see something giant that towers over everything else, regardless of whether it's animated. I see your point though, I'll remove that from this implication.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

The bulk update request #3804 (forum #175144) has been approved by @evazion.

Yeah, I think giant should be limited giant people and monsters, and maybe animals. Mecha already has a dedicated tag. Including things like giant trees leads to including other things like oversized objects and huge weapons too, which would dilute the tag.

evazion said:

Yeah, I think giant should be limited giant people and monsters, and maybe animals. Mecha already has a dedicated tag. Including things like giant trees leads to including other things like oversized objects and huge weapons too, which would dilute the tag.

I think you missed the first BUR then?

The bulk update request #3728 (forum #174691) has been approved by @evazion.