The tag implication #31981 trans_*_(lore) -> trans_(lore) has been rejected.
Reason: self-explanatory
EDIT: The tag implication trans_*_(lore) -> trans_(lore) (forum #290219) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.
Updated by auto moderator
Topic: [REJECTED] Tag implication: trans_*_(lore) -> trans_(lore)
Posted under General
descriptivist said:
The tag implication #31981 trans_*_(lore) -> trans_(lore) has been rejected.Reason: self-explanatory
Aw, sorry, is that syntax not working? To have trans_woman_(lore) and trans_man_(lore) both implicate trans_(lore), would we need to request two separate implications?
What value is there in doing this exactly
descriptivist said:
Aw, sorry, is that syntax not working? To have trans_woman_(lore) and trans_man_(lore) both implicate trans_(lore), would we need to request two separate implications?
Syntax never works in an alias or implication. You have to submit them through the bulk request.
The tag implication trans_*_(lore) -> trans_(lore) (forum #290219) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.