For the past month and a half, I have been working on clearing out the backlog of alias and implication requests.
I should have made a thread for keeping track of my progress earlier... but I didn't. So I'm doing it now instead.
​

Current Situation

​

I will try to update these stats weekly, usually on Fridays.
Note that not all requests get bumped by the automod. For some reason, the automod stops doing that after I handle about 15-20 requests in a row. And it just gives up on life on some of the older ones completely.

​

How you can help

In this thread, you can link to aliases and implications that you think should be handled as soon as possible.
Please make sure that these requests are explained somewhat, even if you think that they are self-evident.

These may be requests that you made, or ones created by someone else.
Also, feel free to ask for requests to be rejected – whether it's because they are really bad, or because they are blocking other requests that you are trying to make.

Topic IDs, request IDs, or full links are all acceptable.
​

Please do not suggest BURs
I am not handling those at the moment. Yes, I know that there is a growing backlog there too, but I want the normal request queue to be in a somewhat healthy state before I tackle those.
And by "healthy" I mean no requests that have been left hanging for literally years.

kemonophonic said:
https://e621.net/forum_topics/22557
https://e621.net/forum_topics/22612
https://e621.net/forum_topics/22628

Can you elaborate on these?
They seem pretty reasonable, and have already been approved.

alias #17839 | alias #17838 | alias #17837

kemonophonic said:
https://e621.net/forum_topics/25229

Sounds good to me, I suppose.

Furrin Gok brings up a valid concern – this tag does require a bit of manual cleanup once in a while. For example, post #3065310 does not feature a costume.
Cosplay pikachu without a costume does not look any different to a normal pikachu (I think?), so isolating that tag's usage to ones actually wearing a costume should be valid.

I'll take another look tomorrow.

topic #19742 is a bad request I made some years ago that can be safely rejected.

omegaumbra said:
topic #19742 is a bad request I made some years ago that can be safely rejected.

Reversed it instead.
Looks okay that way – the Twitter and Pixiv sources check out, and there have not been any mistaggings.
https://e621.net/post_versions?search[tags_added]=アモウ

X-ray Disambiguation - topic #26788
Tl;dr x-ray is a big mess involving overlaps of actual radiographs, internal, translucent, x-ray_vision, and x-ray_flash.

Oh, are we doing this thread again? Well, I guess I might as well paste the same 4 threads I do every time, all of which are now over 2 years old despite being slam dunks:

topic #24507
topic #24697
topic #24694
topic #24693

bitwolfy said:
Cosplay pikachu without a costume does not look any different to a normal pikachu (I think?), so isolating that tag's usage to ones actually wearing a costume should be valid.

Actually, Cosplay Pikachu has a unique marking at the end of its tail which is visible even without a costume:

Regular female Pikachu
Cosplay Pikachu without costume

With that said, we already don't consider canon Pokémon gender differences to be valid grounds for tagging gender, and considering the number of non-canon design variations floating around this site anyway I'm not sure that that alone should be considered grounds to tag the character. If you think otherwise, though, then the costume implications should be rejected/removed.

I'm kinda scanning for candidates for rejection to suggest here...

Looks like topic #20444 can be rejected.

thegreatwolfgang said:
X-ray Disambiguation - topic #26788
Tl;dr x-ray is a big mess involving overlaps of actual radiographs, internal, translucent, x-ray_vision, and x-ray_flash.

Handled, thank you. Cleaned up the x-ray tag, moved most posts to either radiograph, internal, or translucent.
Also took care of the cell BUR, but not the knot one.

wat8548 said:
topic #24507
topic #24697
topic #24694
topic #24693

Accepted all of these.

wat8548 said:
Actually, Cosplay Pikachu has a unique marking at the end of its tail which is visible even without a costume:

Regular female Pikachu
Cosplay Pikachu without costume

With that said, we already don't consider canon Pokémon gender differences to be valid grounds for tagging gender, and considering the number of non-canon design variations floating around this site anyway I'm not sure that that alone should be considered grounds to tag the character. If you think otherwise, though, then the costume implications should be rejected/removed.

Oh, interesting.
I think the way the tags are set up now is fine.

omegaumbra said:
Looks like topic #20444 can be rejected.

It might be okay to alias apprehensive to nervous instead? Or maybe worried.

Edit: also, concerned -> worried alias has been proposed in topic #15733.

bitwolfy said:
It might be okay to alias apprehensive to nervous instead? Or maybe worried.

Looks like it. Skimming through it, it looks like everything was supposed to be nervous or is mistagged. These emotions are very close to each other to be meaningful in my opinion.

Haven't checked whatever gore posts my blacklist blocked, though.

I prepped a list this morning and forgot to post it -

long overdue disambiguations

• topic #22568 - headshot
• topic #23574 - shaggy

easy rejections

• topic #16758 - already implicates digit_ring
• topic #15137 - has since been aliased and that tag implicated
• topic #16133 - already implies pasta
• topic #10254 - has been aliased
• topic #15727 - we don't do character -> species implications
• topic #16588 - already dealt with
• topic #16295 - aliased and implicated

there's also these ones that have since been hidden so I can't see the discussion, it'd be nice if they could either be unhidden or rejected so I can recreate the request, or just stay rejected

• topic #21989 - https://e621.net/tag_aliases/41055
• topic #32043 - https://e621.net/tag_aliases/56226
• I had a whole list of these that I encountered but can't seem to find it right now.. maybe I'll rediscover it later

bitwolfy said:
Furrin Gok brings up a valid concern – this tag does require a bit of manual cleanup once in a while. For example, post #3065310 does not feature a costume.
Cosplay pikachu without a costume does not look any different to a normal pikachu (I think?), so isolating that tag's usage to ones actually wearing a costume should be valid.

I'll take another look tomorrow.

Cosplay pikachu has a black triangle/heart on his/her tail. I wouldn't have even thought of a crossgender Cosplay Pikachu if you hadn't linked that post, but without the cleft at the end, it would end up appearing as a triangle on a flat-tipped tail.

Cosplay Pikachu is a character, not a species or costume, but she had five different costumes.

faucet said: topic #16758 - already implicates digit_ring

I don't know about this one. Can you tell an engagement_ring apart from a wedding_ring from the image alone?
Assuming that the character isn't in the process of proposing, it does not seem that way to me.

faucet said:
topic #15137 - has since been aliased and that tag implicated
topic #16133 - already implies pasta
topic #10254 - has been aliased
topic #15727 - we don't do character -> species implications
topic #16588 - already dealt with
topic #16295 - aliased and implicated

Handled all of these, thank you.

faucet said: topic #21989 - https://e621.net/tag_aliases/41055

I'll get back to this one.
It should be turned into an implication instead – both burnt_clothing and torn_clothing should implicate damaged_clothing.

faucet said: topic #32043 - https://e621.net/tag_aliases/56226

Can't decide if it would be better to invalidate dummy_thicc, or just alias it to thick_thighs or something like that.
Either way, I want to review and clean up posts tagged with it before making a decision.

So do suggestions which have already been implemented, but which aren't explicitly marked as "accepted" on their forum threads, have to be rejected before they count as "handled"? If so, I found a couple more free rejections:

topic #21858 (already aliased)
topic #24553 (already implied)

Found another long-overdue correct alias while I was at it:

topic #18203 (please, it's been 4 years)

wat8548 said:
So do suggestions which have already been implemented, but which aren't explicitly marked as "accepted" on their forum threads, have to be rejected before they count as "handled"? If so, I found a couple more free rejections:

topic #21858 (already aliased)
topic #24553 (already implied)

No. The forum threads don't really matter – some of them are borked in fascinating ways because either the format changed over the years, or someone manually edited the forum post.
You can click on "Link to alias / implication" to see the actual request that matters (sometimes, the link does not work, sometimes it shows multiple results). In this case, the alias #40926 and implication #9798 have the "active" status, which means that nothing else needs to be done about them.

When I handle requests, I don't search the forum threads. I use these two pages: aliases / implications.

wat8548 said:
topic #18203 (please, it's been 4 years)

Sure, sounds reasonable. Thank you.

Good job on these, it's nice to see that backlog start to go down. Here's a few that are more than a year old:
https://e621.net/forum_topics/19251
https://e621.net/forum_topics/26816
https://e621.net/forum_topics/18989

jockjamdoorslam said:
https://e621.net/forum_topics/19251
https://e621.net/forum_topics/26816
https://e621.net/forum_topics/18989

Those have been handled, thanks.

Just a bit of something I made hours ago

https://e621.net/forum_topics/32302

Here's a few of my BURs

https://e621.net/forum_topics/32134
https://e621.net/forum_topics/32042
https://e621.net/forum_topics/32119
https://e621.net/forum_topics/29862
Last one I think might need to later have a second BUR to alias to a better name, but as it stands, they're synonymous and we don't need "cooking_vore"

Everything here can be safely rejected with prejudice.

hungrymaple said: Here's a few of my BURs

I did ask in the first post not to suggest BURs.
I'll get to them eventually, I promise.

gattonero2001 said:
https://e621.net/forum_topics/14612 implication of abbreviation to character name
https://e621.net/forum_topics/14326 felineko already implies felid, it should not imply feline because it includes pantherines
https://e621.net/forum_topics/14256 "kero" is ambiguous, the character tag already has a suffix
https://e621.net/forum_topics/14382 "lucas" is ambiguous, the character tag already has a suffix
https://e621.net/forum_topics/10519 implication of character to species
https://e621.net/forum_topics/19040 alias to illegal tag (underscores and hyphens in succession)
https://e621.net/forum_topics/20928 alias to illegal tag (japanese kana)
https://e621.net/forum_topics/14270 implication of character to species
https://e621.net/forum_topics/24362 implication of character to species
https://e621.net/forum_topics/24399 implication of character to species
https://e621.net/forum_topics/24998 implication of character to species
https://e621.net/forum_topics/25143 implication of character to species
https://e621.net/forum_topics/20765 implications to universal instead of universal_studios <- this topic looks bugged, link to implications
https://e621.net/forum_topics/22948 maleherms are not herms
https://e621.net/forum_topics/17040 persona has been disambiguated

All of those have been handled. Thank you.
I will have to get back to the topic #19040 situation – those should both be aliased to pafu_(exed_eyes), but the site does not let me do that at the moment.

couple of mine:

https://e926.net/forum_topics/31853
https://e926.net/forum_topics/31852

achtungmaybe said:
couple of mine:

https://e926.net/forum_topics/31853
https://e926.net/forum_topics/31852

Looks like Millcore saw and approve those ones.

More things to reject:

Thank you for your hard work (｡•̀ᴗ-)✧

Speaking of "illegal unicode", I only included aliases with that reason above. There are pending implication requests involving unicode tags that I'm not sure about, since Pokémon-related implications, for example, have been accepted recently. Site policy isn't very clear on that issue and to be honest it feels a bit inconsistent.

here's another one: https://e926.net/forum_topics/22616

thanks in advance

achtungmaybe said:
here's another one: https://e926.net/forum_topics/22616

thanks in advance

gotta add the reference material for that big lad

achtungmaybe said:
here's another one: https://e926.net/forum_topics/22616

thanks in advance

As a tip, if you just take the number at the end and put it after topic # you get a neat little like that works regardless of if the user is on e621 or e926, without redirecting them: topic #22616

You can also take everything after .net and put it right after a "quoted text followed by a colon": "link":/forum_topics/22616 becomes link.

bitwolfy said:
I did ask in the first post not to suggest BURs.
I'll get to them eventually, I promise.

Ah sorry about that, I must have been distracted and missed the last line. Do single tag de-aliases count as BUR because they have to be run through BUR? I'm assuming they do.
Also, the final link was an alias
https://e621.net/forum_topics/29862 alias cooking_vore -> cooking_with_furs

versperus said:
gotta add the reference material for that big lad

oops forgot about that, thanks

furrin_gok said:
As a tip, if you just take the number at the end and put it after topic # you get a neat little like that works regardless of if the user is on e621 or e926, without redirecting them: topic #22616

You can also take everything after .net and put it right after a "quoted text followed by a colon": "link":/forum_topics/22616 becomes link.

ah, noted! thank you

achtungmaybe said:
here's another one: https://e926.net/forum_topics/22616

thanks in advance

That alias seems to have already been approved: alias #17829.
Weirdly enough, it does not say who approved it.

hungrymaple said:
Ah sorry about that, I must have been distracted and missed the last line. Do single tag de-aliases count as BUR because they have to be run through BUR? I'm assuming they do.
Also, the final link was an alias
https://e621.net/forum_topics/29862 alias cooking_vore -> cooking_with_furs

Yeah, single-line BURs are fine. It's mainly about the amount of work I have to do to check the request, rather than what kind of request it is.
That alias, however... it's a mess. Cooking_vore / cooking_with_furs might not always feature cooking, vore, or furs. The tag will need to be cleaned up and split apart into more specific tags. I'll see if I can find some time to do that soon.

My piled up requests ^{_{(+ one not by me)}}

Much approval by others:
topic #30223
topic #28375
topic #29936
topic #29823

Not so much approval by others:
topic #29904
topic #30406

topic #32442
topic #32329

two more of mine that are fairly recent but i feel like theyre self-evident

EDIT:

few more:

topic #17909
topic #24930
topic #30254

need to be rejected:

topic #32492
topic #32489
topic #32500

A few things that seem pretty obvious to me:
topic #30096
topic #30058
topic #23091
topic #25909 (and the related BUR in the replies, probably)
topic #30254
topic #32122 - there was some debate in the replies about how to define the tag, but this implication is valid in any case.
topic #32277 - this one is actually a two-line BUR, but I think it’s obvious enough, and the explanation is pretty thorough.

This one is a little more… tricky? But I think it should be handled some way or another regardless:
topic #27743 seems pretty obvious. However, it was created after topic #27468 was rejected, and I’ll point out that while the vote was pretty split on that post, there were few valid objections made in the replies. The implication technically speaking is completely accurate, but people seem to not want them to be in the same category. I wasn’t present for that one, but I think I would have supported it myself. It’s easy enough for people to blacklist or use the minus operator to get around that implication if it’s not what they’re looking for. Besides, I don’t think anyone is searching just underwear without being more specific, considering that such diverse garments as g-string, bra, jockstrap, and fundoshi all imply it. Adding diapers to the list doesn’t seem especially out of place considering underwear is just an umbrella tag to begin with, and they are a type of underwear, factually speaking.

I say all this because I think, even though it was rejected (the admin rejecting it never actually stated why, and the logic seems to be sound regardless…) it might be worth reconsidering. You may as well make a final call on it since the alternate implication has been pending for a year now, so it should be resolved one way or the other.

EDIT: sorry, I didn't mean to make that last one so complicated. I understand that this thread is for finding "easy" approvals or rejections. However, if you have a particular opinion on which way it should go, picking one and rejecting the other should be easy enough, I suppose. Anyway, here's another one that I think is a pretty straightforward approval: topic #21458
Thanks again for all the hard work. :3

Sorry, everyone. This week was really busy for me IRL, and I didn't have a chance to look at these.
Also, I've switched to a different method of calculating totals, which means this week's progress estimates are quite inaccurate. They'll be back to normal next week.

bitwolfy said:
Sorry, everyone. This week was really busy for me IRL, and I didn't have a chance to look at these.
Also, I've switched to a different method of calculating totals, which means this week's progress estimates are quite inaccurate. They'll be back to normal next week.

＊ Fox (knowing one of why) Turned his ears Down ＊

... How about getting more people to help out, as a solution to this Topic's problems?
Recently, I made this proposal, and on #C part, I thought these ：

• #C3 = Users who are joining in this Topic may be able to manage Their topics they are joining in.
• #C2 = Other potential/interested Users may also be able to help by finding Topics --- That are outdated, not well-informed, not well discussed, or not well voted on.

→ God I wish https://e621.net/tag_aliases itself shows them, without going "Show" ...

Well, In the first place, I thought it because of the recent trend of Forum.
That said, I can't imagine if my thoughts would really be useful to anyone else, to be honest though ...

kurogi_foxsiv said:
＊ Fox (knowing one of why) Turned his ears Down ＊

... How about getting more people to help out, as a solution to this Topic's problems?
Recently, I made this proposal, and on #C part, I thought these ：

• #C3 = Users who are joining in this Topic may be able to manage Their topics they are joining in.
• #C2 = Other potential/interested Users may also be able to help by finding Topics --- That are outdated, not well-informed, not well discussed, or not well voted on.

→ God I wish https://e621.net/tag_aliases itself shows them, without going "Show" ...

Well, In the first place, I thought it because of the recent trend of Forum.
That said, I can't imagine if my thoughts would really be useful to anyone else, to be honest though ...

Oh no, it's not your fault whatsoever!
I just got a new job earlier this month, and it's taking me a while to adjust to a new schedule and workload.

Getting more people to help out with the requests would be nice... but it's hard to say if something like this is going to happen any time soon.
Giving users the ability to edit and reject their own requests, like they can already with BURs, has been discussed. I'm pretty sure it's on the TODO list.

Right now, my plan is to reduce the overall backlog to a somewhat manageable size by clearing out the really obvious requests.
However, I will start bumping the more complicated ones, just so I can get more opinions on those. A lot of the older requests have no responses and no votes.
The bigger issue is artist aliases – there are still hundreds of them pending, and checking those for correctness is not a quick process. Especially when the requests are 3-4 years old, and artists have since moved on or changed their name again.

bitwolfy said: Oh no, it's not your fault whatsoever! (...)
(...) The bigger issue is artist aliases (...)

Actually, I'm looking for a new job ... to get more power.

Yeah ... Indeed.
It seems to me What is needed now should be powerful volunteers, too.
Then I will check Forum more, And try to respond to Topics that I have or can find information for.

bitwolfy said:
The bigger issue is artist aliases – there are still hundreds of them pending, and checking those for correctness is not a quick process. Especially when the requests are 3-4 years old, and artists have since moved on or changed their name again.

If you want to bump some of the ones you encounter that aren’t very straightforward, some regular users can do the legwork on those to help clear them out more quickly. I’d be happy to do some artist research now and then.

don't mean to necropost, but is this still ongoing?

bitwolfy said:
Can't decide if it would be better to invalidate dummy_thicc, or just alias it to thick_thighs or something like that.

It should be invalidated, there's no clear pattern of how it's being used, it's been tagged it on characters with thick thighs, overweight/obese characters, characters with big/huge/hyper butts, I don't think there's ever going to be a consensus on what it means, and even if there was, it'd be entirely redundant.

I made a BUR to re-categorize dummy_thicc to invalidhere topic #34243 but I've gotten feedback that the tag should instead be aliased to invalid_tag, but I can't change the BUR to do that because of an erroneous alias I made in January if this alias can be rejected so the BUR can be changed, we can finally get rid of this tag.

Giving users the ability to edit and reject their own requests, like they can already with BURs, has been discussed. I'm pretty sure it's on the TODO list.

That would be great, I know there are aliases I've made that are still pending, that would be better off rejected or made part of a BUR.