my little pony 274368 -> hasbro 259534
You can also find it in recent post. -hasbro my_little_pony

Apparently this particular implication has been problematic for a while:

forum #338362
topic #33725

Still no word on what might be causing these failures.

Because the number is huge, it can not be covered by regular members (caught in the limit of 150 times per hour).

It is weird. But after testing a few things, it looks like it will fix itself automatically the next time any tag edit is saved on those posts.

Which means, that these are all images that have not been tag edited since the glitched implication was made and/or not tag edited since they were uploaded (because it doesn't seem to kick in on the initial upload tags either).

So any tag edit on those posts will force it to update (and add the hasbro tag automatically), but they just haven't been tag edited recently enough for it to have auto-fixed it. This means that you don't actually need to add hasbro directly in the edit, you only need to add any valid tag onto the image (and it will automatically add the hasbro tag onto it when you save your normal tag edit).

So... yes someone could tag script them.
OR -hasbro my_little_pony might be a decent search to use for other tagging projects for awhile. Because any other tag edit you make on those posts will automatically add the hasbro implication tag in the background. So doing other tagging projects on that search will help the backlog get smaller automatically without trying to add it to them all directly. So this is one of the few cases where you could basically do two tag projects at once without any extra effort, if you just do your normal tag projects using that search. Because any tag edit made on any post in that search will fix the missing hasbro tag automatically. So it's like getting progress on a second tag project at the same time. But that strategy might be the easiest way to make the pile smaller, and then we can tag script any leftover stragglers as needed.

Would removing the implication and creating it again fix the issue? It is odd that the implication exists, but the tag's not getting added in certain situations, so maybe recreating it will fix whatever is preventing the system from adding the tag on posts.

I wonder why this couldn’t be automated-

watsit said:
Would removing the implication and creating it again fix the issue? It is odd that the implication exists, but the tag's not getting added in certain situations, so maybe recreating it will fix whatever is preventing the system from adding the tag on posts.

It’s a lot of pony posts to run through, but yeah. Sounds like the best thing to do for this.