The tag implication #51795 adolescent_on_child -> young_on_young has been rejected.

Reason: New implication suggestion

EDIT: The tag implication teenager_on_child -> young_on_young (forum #375834) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Please use a Bulk Update Request (BUR) next time to avoid cluttering up the forum.

Also, give a better reason other than "new implication suggestion". It does not help explain your thought process, even if it is very obvious.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Please use a Bulk Update Request (BUR) next time to avoid cluttering up the forum.

Also, give a better reason other than "new implication suggestion". It does not help explain your thought process, even if it is very obvious.

It also makes it a pain to see if you got all the implications like teenager, child, age_difference, young_on_young. Just don't go all super BUR like that 6-parter I'm working on. Amazingly most of the cleanup is done, but a few are being a pain. I wish Bloodreaver01 had broke them (1 2 3 4 5 6 ) up better. If I see another BUR like that from them, I'm gonna scream! At least my really big-ass card suites one was all on a theme. I also sorted by suites, mostly... I actually wonder if it ever got approved.

Next time do it like this using a BUR:

imply teenager_on_child -> young_on_young
imply teenager_on_child -> teenager
imply teenager_on_child -> child
imply teenager_on_child -> age_difference

Extra vigilance/rigor - I should probably tag these missing tags?
teenager_on_child -older_*
teenager_on_child -younger_*
teenager_on_child -young_*
teenager_on_child -larger_*
teenager_on_child -smaller_*

Welp, crud: post #3998899 is not explicit. I assume the implication chain is valid, but that it shouldn't be teenager_on_child, so removed that tag.

The tag implication teenager_on_child -> young_on_young (forum #375834) has been rejected by @slyroon.