Viewing last 25 versions of post by Dillocircus in topic UNofficial implication thread

[@Stinkek](/forums/meta/topics/unofficial-implication-thread?post_id=421#post_421)
yeah, I may have to reverse that. I know that it was not originally like that though, because there was not enough uses of it to reflect the amount of actual images with OCs in them.

Either way, I can mass-remove the tag easily, so don't worry about it too much. I'll be the one taking any flak (and mass-readding it lol) if Pup's upset over it 😅

Turns out Philomena's namespace thing results in this EXTREMELY awkward thing where *"oc:" is not actually part of the tag name*, so while you can search for all oc: *tags*, you cannot use a search like "oc:*" to find all *images with oc tags*, because that searach is considered exactly the same as "*"...

[@Stinkek](/forums/meta/topics/unofficial-implication-thread?post_id=421#post_421)
yeah, I may have to reverse that. I know that it was not originally like that though, because there was not enough uses of it to reflect the amount of actual images with OCs in them.

Either way, I can mass-remove the tag easily, so don't worry about it too much. I'll be the one taking any flak (and mass-readding it lol) if Pup's upset over it 😅

Turns out Philomena's namespace thing results in this EXTREMELY awkward thing where *"oc:" is not actually part of the tag name*, so while you can search for all oc: tags, you cannot use a search like "oc:*" to find all images with oc tags, because that searach is exactly the same as "*"...