The tag alias #70088 am -> invalid_tag is pending approval.

Reason: It's a character tag, supposedly, but every image has different characters. I suspect it's mostly tagged as a typo, aside from one image that's a sunrise landscape.

Usually tags that are simple words like am have their category changed to invalid rather than being aliased to invalid tag
for example i you at the u on is

though topic #42698 does seem to not continue that trend

I already corrected the one case where it was supposed to be Amwolff. The alternative would have been to change it to Am (Amwolff) if it wasn't literally that person's avatar.

snpthecat said:
Usually tags that are simple words like am have their category changed to invalid rather than being aliased to invalid tag
for example i you at the u on is

though topic #42698 does seem to not continue that trend

Haha, yeah, we/are/but/so/to and so on are also in that theme.

The bulk update request #7948 is pending approval.

remove alias an (3) -> invalid_tag (2)
change category am (0) -> invalid

Reason: Following the previous trend outlined above
Followup:
category an -> invalid

snpthecat said:
The bulk update request #7948 is pending approval.

remove alias an (3) -> invalid_tag (2)
change category am (0) -> invalid

Reason: Following the previous trend outlined above
Followup:
category an -> invalid

An? Am? Typo?

alphamule said:
An? Am? Typo?

No. an is aliased to invalid tag, am is currently a character tag. I'm saying both should go to invalid category

I don't think it's useful to put it in the invalid category. That's great for things like [on] where there is probably something that it could be replaced with. When I cleared out [am], aside from the one character I didn't touch, it wasn't replaceable with anything. It was just a typo that needed to be removed.

regsmutt said:
I don't think it's useful to put it in the invalid category. That's great for things like [on] where there is probably something that it could be replaced with. When I cleared out [am], aside from the one character I didn't touch, it wasn't replaceable with anything. It was just a typo that needed to be removed.

This is a good point. "Am" is usually used for descriptions, which are sometimes typed into the tags field by accident, but are entirely useless for tagging purposes.

I think knowing what invalid tag somebody used is almost always useful - if somebody typed the tag it was surely intended to mean something. Our best way of figuring out where something went wrong is actually knowing the real user input.

I recently experienced the invalid tag c on one of my posts, and because it was highlighted to me it was easy to figure out the problem. If c was aliased to invalid_tag like many people argued for, I probably would've just removed invalid_tag and left the other typo.

Cleaning up invalid tags is no more difficult than invalid_tag with invtags:>0 or invtags:>0 -*_(disambiguation). If there's really nothing it can be replaced with, you remove it all the same.

faucet said:
I think knowing what invalid tag somebody used is almost always useful - if somebody typed the tag it was surely intended to mean something. Our best way of figuring out where something went wrong is actually knowing the real user input.

I recently experienced the invalid tag c on one of my posts, and because it was highlighted to me it was easy to figure out the problem. If c was aliased to invalid_tag like many people argued for, I probably would've just removed invalid_tag and left the other typo.

Cleaning up invalid tags is no more difficult than invalid_tag with invtags:>0 or invtags:>0 -*_(disambiguation). If there's really nothing it can be replaced with, you remove it all the same.

invtags:>0 -*_(disambiguation) covers the invalid tags which aren't the 40 most populous disambiguation tags, which is basically more disambiguation tags

regsmutt said:
This wasn't the case here. Five of them were tagged ambiguous_gender or amphibian, so I think those were what the typos were from. The rest had descriptions which didn't contain 'am' so who knows where it came from there. Maybe a typo when entering 'anthro' or 'anal'?

Oh yeah am is a shortcut for ambiguous_gender

furrin_gok said:
This is a good point. "Am" is usually used for descriptions, which are sometimes typed into the tags field by accident, but are entirely useless for tagging purposes.

This wasn't the case here. Five of them were tagged ambiguous_gender or amphibian, so I think those were what the typos were from. The rest had descriptions which didn't contain 'am' so who knows where it came from there. Maybe a typo when entering 'anthro' or 'anal'?

snpthecat said:
invtags:>0 -*_(disambiguation) covers the invalid tags which aren't the 40 most populous disambiguation tags, which is basically more disambiguation tags

...huh, I could've sworn that got changed at some point. Disregard that then.

snpthecat said:
invtags:>0 -*_(disambiguation) covers the invalid tags which aren't the 40 most populous disambiguation tags, which is basically more disambiguation tags
Oh yeah am is a shortcut for ambiguous_gender

regsmutt said:
This wasn't the case here. Five of them were tagged ambiguous_gender or amphibian, so I think those were what the typos were from. The rest had descriptions which didn't contain 'am' so who knows where it came from there. Maybe a typo when entering 'anthro' or 'anal'?

Well, dang, maybe disambiguation is the way to go, instead, then? I mean, since it seems that an and am lead to those issues mentioned.

alphamule said:
Well, dang, maybe disambiguation is the way to go, instead, then? I mean, since it seems that an and am lead to those issues mentioned.

Not quite. Disambiguation is for ambiguous tags, invalid category is for incomplete tags, and these fall in the latter