The tag implication #63358 smaller_male_solo -> invalid? has been rejected.

Reason: I'm not sure how this is best implemented, but a post cannot have both the smaller_male tag and solo and have both be valid, right? There's currently seven pages worth of posts with this combination. Same should apply for other variations of smaller_*.

Edit: see below, I've rejected this myself.

0-danishnerduwu said:
Reason: I'm not sure how this is best implemented, but a post cannot have both the smaller_male tag and solo and have both be valid, right? There's currently seven pages worth of posts with this combination. Same should apply for other variations of smaller_*.

Tag alias/implication requests are not supposed to be used in this manner.

• Implications are only reserved for tags that you want to be chained together (e.g., all smaller_male posts should also have male tagged, therefore imply smaller_male -> male).
• Aliases are only reserved for tags that you want to be merged together (e.g., man should be renamed as male, therefore alias man -> male).

What you are suggesting here is for every posts tagged with smaller_male_solo (a non-existent tag) to be tagged with invalid? (another non-existent tag), which does not make any sense.

If you want a single tag to be invalidated, then you can request for it to be aliased to invalid_tag.
However, in this case, you cannot do it for a combination of tags like smaller_male duo.
You will have to manually fix it by editing the tags on every single post and removing the offending tag.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Tag alias/implication requests are not supposed to be used in this manner.

• Implications are only reserved for tags that you want to be chained together (e.g., all smaller_male posts should also have male tagged, therefore imply smaller_male -> male).
• Aliases are only reserved for tags that you want to be merged together (e.g., man should be renamed as male, therefore alias man -> male).

What you are suggesting here is for every posts tagged with smaller_male_solo (a non-existent tag) to be tagged with invalid? (another non-existent tag), which does not make any sense.

If you want a single tag to be invalidated, then you can request for it to be aliased to invalid_tag.
However, in this case, you cannot do it for a combination of tags like smaller_male duo.
You will have to manually fix it by editing the tags on every single post and removing the offending tag.

Uhh, I think something in my post got automatically changed: a space became an underscore? And that changed the meaning quite a bit..

What I meant to say was, if a post has both the smaller_male tag and the solo tag, then something doesn't add up. Then the invalid_tag tag could be automatically added to clean it up manually later on.

I got your point, though, that implications are not the way to implement this. Thanks for the answer.

The tag implication smaller_male_solo -> invalid? (forum #406535) has been rejected by @0-DanishNerdUwU.

0-danishnerduwu said:
Uhh, I think something in my post got automatically changed: a space became an underscore? And that changed the meaning quite a bit..

Yeah, the system expects you to only insert a single tag.
Putting in two tags, even if separated by a space rather than an underscore, will be considered as one whole tag.

What I meant to say was, if a post has both the smaller_male tag and the solo tag, then something doesn't add up. Then the invalid_tag tag could be automatically added to clean it up manually later on.

Also not how invalid_tag is used. It is only there to tell users that they had added an invalid tag in the post, and they are expected to remove it after finding out what their mistake was.
You don't intentionally add invalid_tag into a post to get others to fix it.