The tag implication #66214 pump&dump -> pump_and_dump has been rejected.

Reason: Match the syntax and style of seemingly every other tag on this site. Feels like an outlier that should be changed. If I could change the original tag to this new spelling then I would've done that instead.

EDIT: The tag implication pump&dump -> pump_and_dump (forum #434842) has been rejected by @Nin10dope.

How does pump&dump adhere to the TWYS policy? Is there any significant difference between this and unwanted_impregnation?

thegreatwolfgang said:
How does pump&dump adhere to the TWYS policy? Is there any significant difference between this and unwanted_impregnation?

Yes, pump and dump is used in hand with dialogue that implies that the impregnator plans on being an absent parent, leaving the mother to be a sole parent. This can be separate from unwanted pregnancy depending on the mother. You can check the "wiki" of the tag yourself, as it has an explanation. This implication is just for a spelling change of an active tag to better fit in with the rest.

nin10dope said:
Yes, pump and dump is used in hand with dialogue that implies that the impregnator plans on being an absent parent, leaving the mother to be a sole parent.

Dialog is considered external information. It's too open to interpretation, especially when dealing with different languages, and it doesn't need to be true (a character can say one thing, then do the opposite). Text is also fleeting, stuff is generally just said once, so on a sequence of posts it'd only apply to the one post with the relevant dialog and none of the other posts. At best, dialog can work in tandem with visual elements, but a tag should still work without the dialog present.

Even if it was a good tag, this should be an alias request rather than an implication.

watsit said:
Dialog is considered external information.

With this in mind, the only really applicable post would be post #5070776

Even if we were taking dialogue into account, so many are mistags, where it's just impregnation or unwanted impregnation.
Like post #2323935 or post #3178702, there's nothing indicating intent to be an absentee parent.
Even something like post #4246662, the indication of the impregnated having a partner, I wouldn't quite say that's pump and dump, as we don't know if the impregnator is part of their lives regularly.

peskeon said:
Even if it was a good tag, this should be an alias request rather than an implication.

+1

dirtyderg said:
With this in mind, the only really applicable post would be post #5070776

I don't even think that applies. Aside from the wiki saying it's when a someone potentially impregnates another, then runs off to leave the other person with the potential kids (and that's clearly male/male with no pregnancy, just some cum_inflation), it seems to be nothing more than a one-night stand. The human's drunk, they have sex, and they wave goodbye to each other as the orca runs off to leave on a boat.

peskeon said:
Even if it was a good tag, this should be an alias request rather than an implication.

You're probably right
I looked at both and wasn't 100% sure which, so I guessed wrong.
I mean I could also just go into every post that has the tag, delete this one and rewrite the better version, considering there's only 60 (I removed the two mentioned above)

watsit said:
Dialog is considered external information. It's too open to interpretation, especially when dealing with different languages, and it doesn't need to be true (a character can say one thing, then do the opposite). Text is also fleeting, stuff is generally just said once, so on a sequence of posts it'd only apply to the one post with the relevant dialog and none of the other posts. At best, dialog can work in tandem with visual elements, but a tag should still work without the dialog present.

There's a plethora of common use tags that rely exclusively (or near enough) on dialog though, so that's something you'll have to convert the masses on first. Otherwise it's an unenforced idea

The tag implication pump&dump -> pump_and_dump (forum #434842) has been rejected by @Nin10dope.