The tag implication #46746 extreme_size_difference -> size_difference has been approved.

Reason: Establishing extreme_size_difference as a tag for wider size_difference

EDIT: The tag implication extreme_size_difference -> size_difference (forum #343634) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

This could use further clarification: How drastic do the sizes need to be to count as extreme? Big enough of a difference and it's just micro on macro, so if it's huge differences like that it should alias to that instead.

furrin_gok said:
This could use further clarification: How drastic do the sizes need to be to count as extreme? Big enough of a difference and it's just micro on macro, so if it's huge differences like that it should alias to that instead.

Does a macro and a regular sized character count as micro on macro?

faucet said:
Does a macro and a regular sized character count as micro on macro?

by the current definition of macro_on_micro, macro, and micro, yes.
if there is a post that contains a normal-sized character (i.e. they're standing in a house and everything is sized to accommodate a person of their size) it wouldn't be tagged as either macro or micro. however if that same exact post had a mouse-sized character standing on a countertop or something the post becomes _both_ micro and macro since, to the mouse-sized character the normal-sized character is macro and to the normal-sized character the mouse-sized character is micro, and the objects in the house no longer matter for tagging a character's size for some reason. (in this example all characters are non-ferals if you include feral characters it's even more of a mess)

see: the discussion for BUR #2533

darryus said:
by the current definition of macro_on_micro, macro, and micro, yes.

By the current definition of macro_on_micro, macro, and micro, no:

macro wiki says:
A normal sized character interacting with a micro sized character is not "macro" and shouldn't be tagged as macro

micro wiki says:
A normal sized character interacting with a macro (giant) character is not micro

micro_on_macro wiki says:
To be precise, this tag is applied to posts depicting a sexual encounter between at least one character of each size - giant (macro) character(s) and small (micro) character(s.)

So a macro with a regular size character is not micro, and as it's only a macro character with no micro character, can't be micro_on_macro.

watsit said:
By the current definition of macro_on_micro, macro, and micro, no:
So a macro with a regular size character is not micro, and as it's only a macro character with no micro character, can't be micro_on_macro.

the wikis for micro and macro have been changed recently, I guess. however...

micro_on_macro wiki says:
It is worth noting that, size being a relative concept, it is not strictly necessary for the smaller character to technically fall under the purview of micro, nor vice versa. The same effect can be achieved by juxtaposing an abnormally-sized character with a normally-sized one.

Then the micro_on_macro wiki is self-contradicting and needs correcting, since it specifically says it must have at least one of each size (micro and macro) sexually interacting. Then going on to say "size is purely relative and the actual micro/macro status is irrelevant" is the opposite of what it previously said. It also makes no sense given the tag name, and becomes little different from size_difference.

Speaking for myself, I consider "macro" to be grown characters, "micro" to be shrunken, and "micro_on_macro" to imply some sort of sexual or romantic interaction (especially since "micro/macro" got aliased to "micro_on_macro"), so there are some macrophilia pictures that just don't fit with "micro_on_macro" - arguably most of them don't if you consider the differences between macro and macro. This is why I see "extreme_size_difference" as being useful in covering more bases.

Maybe there should potentially be an alias?

watsit said:
Then the micro_on_macro wiki is self-contradicting and needs correcting, since it specifically says it must have at least one of each size (micro and macro) sexually interacting. Then going on to say "size is purely relative and the actual micro/macro status is irrelevant" is the opposite of what it previously said. It also makes no sense given the tag name, and becomes little different from size_difference.

well, the tag wiki was written when the other two tags still said similar things. I think the reason that the tag wiki for micro_on_macro has gone unchanged is because it seems like users don't really want the tag around anymore, they'd prefer that extreme_size_difference, replaced it.

darryus said:
...it seems like users don't really want the tag around anymore, they'd prefer that extreme_size_difference, replaced it.

Set up an alias request if we're considering this:
https://e621.net/forum_topics/35184

darryus said:
well, the tag wiki was written when the other two tags still said similar things. I think the reason that the tag wiki for micro_on_macro has gone unchanged is because it seems like users don't really want the tag around anymore, they'd prefer that extreme_size_difference, replaced it.

In either case, micro_on_macro implicates both micro and macro, and has for so long the implication pages don't even have a date, so the user who wrote the wiki to say they don't have to actually be micro and macro was wrong.

watsit said:
In either case, micro_on_macro implicates both micro and macro, and has for so long the implication pages don't even have a date, so the user who wrote the wiki to say they don't have to actually be micro and macro was wrong.

it wasn't wrong at the time. prior to a wiki edit a month ago the micro wiki literally said:

Often accompanied by macro (if so, also tag size_difference). Note that neither character has to really be macro to e.g. get the micro_on_macro tag (and hence micro) since it is often impossible to determine which character, if any, is human-sized and which is larger/smaller.

so what the micro_on_macro wiki says now totally matches that.

The tag implication extreme_size_difference -> size_difference (forum #343634) has been approved by @bitWolfy.