Topic: [BUR] Fixing (nude/clothed)_(gender)_(nude/clothed)_(gender) tags

None of these tags are too widely used, so it may be better to simply fix all instances of them rather than make a BUR or make them invalid. Let me know what you guys think.

A couple examples of the tags I'm talking about:
partially_clothed_female_nude_male (114 posts)
nude_female_clothed_male (69 posts)
Or worse:
partially_clothed_anthro_nude_male (bizarrely, at 122 posts)

These tags should definitely not exist and should just be tagged as their individual parts. I'm a bit unfamiliar with the process - if a BUR was to be created here, would I be correct in assuming we would start with implying their individual parts, then making these tags invalid in a follow-up BUR?

Ex:
imply partially_clothed_female_nude_male -> partially_clothed_female
imply partially_clothed_female_nude_male -> nude_male
Then in another BUR:
alias partially_clothed_female_nude_male -> invalid_tag

We don't create implications just to remove them, and there's no reason to alias it to invalid tag
We only get rid of a tag entirely if there is no valid replacement
With these "double double" tags, we usually alias them to the first half (because autocomplete) and call it good (see topic #43781)

donovan_dmc said:
We don't create implications just to remove them, and there's no reason to alias it to invalid tag
We only get rid of a tag entirely if there is no valid replacement
With these "double double" tags, we usually alias them to the first half (because autocomplete) and call it good (see topic #43781)

I see! Thank you, that does make sense.

The bulk update request #13655 is pending approval.

Reason: I ignored most tags with <3 posts as they can be reasonably cleaned up on their own. I'm pretty sure I got all others, but I may have missed some.