The tag alias #75019 implied_fucking -> invalid_tag has been approved.

Reason: In line with implied_sex being aliased to invalid since this is synonymous.

EDIT: The tag alias implied_fucking -> invalid_tag (forum #437476) has been approved by @spe.

The tag alias implied_fucking -> invalid_tag (forum #437476) has been approved by @spe.

Surely, it's meant to be used for obscured_sex and offscreen_sex. Should implied_sex/implied_fucking instead be aliased to implied_sex_(disambiguation)?

The bulk update request #10610 is pending approval.

remove alias implied_sex (0) -> invalid_tag (1)
remove alias implied_fucking (2) -> invalid_tag (1)
change category implied_sex (0) -> invalid # missing

Reason: Aliasing to invalid tag is only done when there is no valid meaning it could have. As stated, there's obscured sex and offscreen sex, which it could mean.

Followup:
alias implied_fucking -> implied_sex

The bulk update request #10611 is pending approval.

remove alias implied_masturbation (0) -> invalid_tag (1)
change category implied_masturbation (0) -> invalid

Reason: And this too, though only valid thing is obscured masturbation, offscreen masturbation is aliased

snpthecat said:
Reason: Aliasing to invalid tag is only done when there is no valid meaning it could have. As stated, there's obscured sex and offscreen sex, which it could mean.

offscreen_sex doesn't sound like a good tag, and easy to misuse for sex that is completely offscreen. As opposed to "Sexual activity that is happening partially off the screen, but it is still obvious that sex is happening." that the tag is actually defined as. That and obscured_sex don't really fit what implied_sex was trying to do, which is get around the TWYS/non-lore status of sex and just be asserted by the tagger or creator (as most implied_* tags were used for).

The bulk update request #10612 is pending approval.

remove alias offscreen_masturbation (0) -> invalid_tag (1)

Reason: This has its uses, see post #1657691 post #524798

watsit said:
offscreen_sex doesn't sound like a good tag, and easy to misuse for sex that is completely offscreen. As opposed to "Sexual activity that is happening partially off the screen, but it is still obvious that sex is happening." that the tag is actually defined as. That and obscured_sex don't really fit what implied_sex was trying to do, which is get around the TWYS/non-lore status of sex and just be asserted by the tagger or creator (as most implied_* tags were used for).

Removing the alias from invalid tag doesn't mean it becomes valid, it's just being removed and invalidated because it isn't totally devoid of valid tags it is related to.

Anyways my philosophy for method of invalidation is that invalid_tag is only used for when it's a slur/there's nothing it can be replaced with. So whatever you typed in that resulted in invalid tag popping up, you can safely remove without consequence that you may have left off a valid tag. Disambiguation tags are for things that have multiple meanings, and invalid category is for incomplete tags/everything else that's considered invalid.
It's also useful to see what you've typed was invalid, what it can be replaced with, and if it can't, what you should stop using next time (you don't remember everything you type do you?)

snpthecat said:
Removing the alias from invalid tag doesn't mean it becomes valid, it's just being removed and invalidated because it isn't totally devoid of valid tags it is related to.

Tags that are in the invalid category that aren't invalid_tag do tend to stick around longer and build up uses more than invalid_tag. I don't think they're related enough to what people use the tags for and will cause more work to clean up since they need to be checked for a valid replacement when it's not going to need one the majority of the time, and possibly cause more people to mistag offscreen_sex/offscreen_masturbation for completely offscreen/unseen sex.

watsit said:
Tags that are in the invalid category that aren't invalid_tag do tend to stick around longer and build up uses more than invalid_tag. I don't think they're related enough to what people use the tags for and will cause more work to clean up since they need to be checked for a valid replacement when it's not going to need one the majority of the time, and possibly cause more people to mistag offscreen_sex/offscreen_masturbation for completely offscreen/unseen sex.

Meh, these are the posts they're (implied_sex/fucking) being added to post #582945 post #572355 post #561757 post #5289818

I think you're overestimating the number of people who would go to an invalidated tag's wiki and blindly use a replacement tag from there.

Also we could rename offscreen sex to partially offscreen sex (offscreen masturbation too, though that might be harder)

snpthecat said:
I think you're overestimating the number of people who would go to an invalidated tag's wiki and blindly use a replacement tag from there.

Maybe, but I have often seen posts tagged implied_x for a tagger asserting x is/has happened with no visual indication, and often see discussions go along the lines of "You can only tag x if you see it, which you can't there." "Then how about implied_x?" as if it's a workaround to TWYS. Looking at the posts that had been tagged implied_sex (those that are still visible, anyway), a great majority wouldn't be applicable for (partially_)offscreen_sex/obscured_sex.

remove alias offscreen_masturbation (0) -> invalid_tag (0)

This should probably be done from a consistency standpoint, but at the same time, I do wonder how useful the obscured vs. offscreen distinction really is, particularly for masturbation. Perhaps it serves a practical purpose for sex: