The tag alias #64125 without_panties -> invalid_tag has been rejected.

Reason: Somehow this has amassed 41 posts so far. It's apparently meant to mean either "bottomless" or "no_underwear", but it's too vague to alias to either one.

Consider this also a request for permission to go through and retag all of those 41 posts.

EDIT: The tag alias without_panties -> invalid_tag (forum #378041) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

Alias to no_underwear, this is no more likely to be mistagged than no_underwear itself. We don't need more crap aliased to invalid_tag. There was quite a few instances where it was used to mean bottomless or nude but a quick search of no_underwear shows about the same level of misuse:

post #4326253 post #4320683 post #4316026

errorist said:
Consider this also a request for permission to go through and retag all of those 41 posts.

I went ahead and did it anyway, rather than waiting years for an alias.

Oh. That's cool I guess. I actually wanted to go through and do a deep scan of all their tags, though, since the first one I found popped up in a search for "pantsless" which is also wrong.

errorist said:
Oh. That's cool I guess. I actually wanted to go through and do a deep scan of all their tags, though, since the first one I found popped up in a search for "pantsless" which is also wrong.

Ah, if you wanted to do a deep scan you can still find em all here

is a gelbooru and danbooru tag FYI. They don't use no_underwear. Penis erasure. no_underwear is the sensible tag. Just remove the ones that are only bottomless from no_panties, an issue no_underwear already faces.

The tag alias without_panties -> invalid_tag (forum #378041) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.