The tag alias #46600 x-ray -> x-ray_(disambiguation) has been approved.

Reason: X-ray is a big mess, people are still using x-ray to tag internal (partially due to how the source tags/defines it) and translucent_* posts.
I have since fixed those mistags but I have also come across a bunch of other issues due to the naming and wiki definition of x-ray.

There are posts where the viewer can see through clothes/objects (such as post #886123 & post #1797235) which don't fall under x-ray or internal.
They do not fall under translucent_clothing as well as the wiki for that defines it as being for partially see-through clothing only.
For the moment, I have placed them under an existing tag called x-ray_vision. If there is a better tag for these, do suggest.

To add on to the mess, someone has created a new tag called x-ray_flash which contains hundreds of animated posts with a mix of internal and x-ray_vision-esque elements in them.
I have not gone through fixing this tag yet. Edit: x-ray_flash to be maintained.

I feel that a disambiguation is necessary here because the people/artists' idea of the word "x-ray" tends to be the Superman version of x-rays, and not the radiography version that the wiki highlights. Disambiguation wiki should tell people to choose between radiograph, internal, translucent, x-ray_vision, or x-ray_flash.

EDIT: The tag alias x-ray -> x-ray_(disambiguation) (forum #292939) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

is a necessary tag. If you invalidate it, you will make everyone who blacklisted that tag angry. It is there for the flash effect that allows you to see through things. The tag is cleaned up, so I don't see a huge need to fix it. It just hadn't been cleaned in awhile. It happens.

I feel like the x-ray tag needs a regular cleaning more often than most others, due to its common use for internal shots elsewhere. Changing it to a disambiguation won't change that directly, but it might help people to realize that this site doesn't use it in that context over time. I do think that we should leave x-ray_flash intact though.

thevileone said:
xray_flash is a necessary tag.

nromrore said:
I do think that we should leave x-ray_flash intact though.

Thanks for clarifying. I did not know that since there was no wiki definition. I have edited the suggestion to leave it intact, but I do suggest having a proper wiki in place.

The bulk update request #1076 is active.

remove alias radiograph (85) -> x-ray (0)
change category x-ray_(disambiguation) (8) -> invalid

Reason: These tags will need to be un-aliased from x-ray first, in order for x-ray to be aliased to x-ray_(disambiguation).

EDIT: The bulk update request #1076 (forum #312915) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

d.d.m. said:

remove alias x_ray -> x-ray
remove alias xray -> x-ray
remove alias radiograph -> x-ray

The first two are not actually required for a normal alias request. The transitives get resolved correctly. It's only an issue with making an alias through a BUR.
The latter is necessary, though.

The bulk update request #1076 (forum #312915) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The tag alias x-ray -> x-ray_(disambiguation) (forum #292939) has been approved by @bitWolfy.