BUR #29588 has been rejected.
This tag is frequently misused for the expression >o<, so this should make it clearer that it's for the abbreviation.
Posted under Tags
BUR #29588 has been rejected.
This tag is frequently misused for the expression >o<, so this should make it clearer that it's for the abbreviation.
Was there really a point in you making this definition for the xo tag when not only was it not representative of what was under the tag, even after your massive cleansing of the tag your definition still doesn't even make up the majority of posts. Wouldn't it have been more constructive to have simply made an xoxo tag from the start with the handful of posts that actually were of the definition you were going for?
Updated
It had completely slipped my mind that I could just make a new tag. Then again, we already have >o<... and that one had 1600 posts before I started. xo by itself, then, would be a duplicate of that tag. I was operating on the wrong assumption and moved things to the bigger tag.
xo by itself is still ambiguous, though, so the end result is the same...
The bulk update request #29588 (forum #297136) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.