The bulk update request #5400 has been rejected.

create implication m_and_m's (12) -> m&m's (112)
create implication m&ms (2) -> m&m's (112)

Reason: m_and_m's is the more widely used tag, but M&M's is the actual brand name

EDIT: The bulk update request #5400 (forum #374392) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

This one's kind of a mess. See also topic #27753.

There was some talk about ampersands not being allowed as special characters to leave room for future additions to the tagging system, but I'm not really sure where anybody stands on that anymore. Ampersands are still permitted in tag names as of right now.

Should be an alias and not an implication, since they mean the same thing. Then there's the issue of phasing out ampersands in tags but as faucet said, that didn't go anywhere.

dirtyderg said:
The bulk update request #5400 has been rejected.

create implication m_and_m's (12) -> m&m's (112)
create implication m&ms (2) -> m&m's (112)

Reason: m_and_m's is the more widely used tag, but M&M's is the actual brand name

alias, and also special characters

The ampersand isn't unicode, so it's technically allowed, and might even be somewhat necessary due to how many tags still use it.
I just really, really dislike how m_and_m's looks, lol

The bulk update request #5403 is active.

create alias m_and_m's (12) -> m&m's (112)
create alias m&ms (2) -> m&m's (112)
create alias m_and_ms (0) -> m&m's (112)

scaliespe said:
The ampersand isn't unicode, so it's technically allowed, and might even be somewhat necessary due to how many tags still use it.
I just really, really dislike how m_and_m's looks, lol

So that's an approval for aliasing it to m&m's?
Aight, alias it is then. They all are referring to the same thing. Also a bit of futureproofing

EDIT: The bulk update request #5403 (forum #374466) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #5403 (forum #374466) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #5400 (forum #374392) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.