The tag alias #51340 canon -> invalid_tag has been rejected.

Reason: Pointless and overencompassing, considering the huge amount of IPs covered in eSix's posts.

EDIT: The tag alias canon -> invalid_tag (forum #307984) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

Canon made me think of cameras and printers.

I don't believe canon should be considered an invalid tag. Rather, make the proposal that canon should be a META tag

closetpossum said:
I don't believe canon should be considered an invalid tag. Rather, make the proposal that canon should be a META tag

It's too vague, IMO. We already have character tags for canon characters. We already have official_art for official canon artwork, and on_model for characters drawn in a style indistinguishable from the source material. There's also the company Canon that makes cameras, and it's just one letter off of cannon. If there's anything more it can refer to, that's just adding to the ambiguity.

I'd rather disambiguate or change the tag category to invalid for possible confusion with canon_(company) or a cannon typo. If it's aliased to invalid_tag nobody will know what it was supposed to be.

watsit said:
It's too vague, IMO. We already have character tags for canon characters. We already have official_art for official canon artwork, and on_model for characters drawn in a style indistinguishable from the source material. There's also the company Canon that makes cameras, and it's just one letter off of cannon. If there's anything more it can refer to, that's just adding to the ambiguity.

hmmm what about shippings for duo pictures of canon lovers? then would that work for a canon tag?

closetpossum said:
hmmm what about shippings for duo pictures of canon lovers? then would that work for a canon tag?

canon_couple

faucet said:
I'd rather disambiguate or change the tag category to invalid for possible confusion with canon_(company) or a cannon typo. If it's aliased to invalid_tag nobody will know what it was supposed to be.

+1 to changing the category of the tag to invalid

With the way this tag is currently defined, it's roughly the same thing as searching copytags:>0. However, as has been mentioned in this thread, the tagger may sometimes have meant:

• cannon
• canon_(company)
• official_art
• on_model
• canon_couple

Maybe it should be aliased to canon_(disambiguation) and canon_(disambiguation) should be set to Invalid?

I'm not sure I get the difference between aliasing to *_(disambiguation), aliasing to invalid_tag, and setting a tag's category to Invalid.

crocogator said:
I'm not sure I get the difference between aliasing to *_(disambiguation), aliasing to invalid_tag, and setting a tag's category to Invalid.

The way I see it, aliasing to *_(disambiguation) (which should also be set to the Invalid category, since disambiguation tags aren't valid to purposely use and should always be fixed) is for tags that have legitimate uses, but is ambiguous in meaning. For example, "safe" is aliased to safe_(disambiguation)... there's legitimate ways the tag can be used, but it's ambiguous if the tagger meant "safe" as in a lockable container to store valuables, or that the image is SFW, or a couple other meanings as mentioned in the wiki. So it directs them to use the less ambiguous tags instead.

Aliasing to invalid_tag is for tags that are straight up bad, we know are bad, and there's nothing we can do with them other than remove it. The recent dealings with treboloid/pirozami for example. It's a made up species with an indecipherable description being applied to random characters made by other people. It's just bad, there's no way it can be useful, so it's aliased to invalid_tag for quick and easy removal should it pop up again.

And simply setting a tag's category to Invalid is for unusable tags, but may have been a result of a typo or which a tagger may not realize is necessary or good. Explicit isn't a valid tag because that's handled by the Explicit rating. So if someone tries to tag it, they'll see it appear as Invalid, and know not to try tagging it again. Or after, which can be a misspelled after_sex (or after_oral, etc), so when a tagger sees that pop up as Invalid, they know to fix the tags relating to what they meant with after.

watsit said:
...

Thanks, that makes sense.
I created a Wiki for canon_(disambiguation), since the tagger may intend valid usages such as canon_(company) or canon_couple. I tried to create this BUR:

category canon_(disambiguation) -> invalid
alias canon -> canon_(disambiguation)

but I get an error (Error: Error: Antecedent name has already been taken (create alias canon -> canon_(disambiguation))). I guess it conflicts with this thread's proposed canon -> invalid_tag alias.

The wiki for the tag canon is trying to formulate something that is missing, and perhaps should be missing. I've been wondering, if the idea is that a precise likeness to the IP character is required, or would a group of squirrels in a squirrel world, dressed and behaving like the X-Men be considered canon (X-men).

What might be useful, is something alongside canon_scene. I guess canon_character_design might do. Then the squirrels would still be with copyright tag X-Men, but not canon_character_design. Not sure, how this would relate with on_model. Perhaps just on_model suffices..?

The tag alias canon -> invalid_tag (forum #307984) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.