The bulk update request #245 has been rejected.

Reason: The first in a series of BURs focused around 'hearts'.

EDIT: The bulk update request #245 (forum #295683) has failed: Error: Alias would modify other aliases or implications through transitive relationships. (create alias <3_areola -> heart_areola)

EDIT: The bulk update request #245 (forum #295683) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

Just in case anybody wants to know the basis for the <3_* —> heart_* move, see topic #24889 and make your judgment based on that.

Not to be confused as an alias for <3 —> heart, they are already aliased together. Discussions are currently ongoing for disambiguating them.

Thank you for adding a link to that forum topic.

I just want to say, that my stance on <3_* over heart_* has shifted slightly over the past couple days. I'm still leaning tward <3_*, but since the heart_* tags won't really ever have the same problems as changing <3 to heart, the change would ultimately not have effect on anything.

I only really prefer <3_* for constancy with the <3 tag (which I think should remain as per my argument in topic #24889).

^{also, you missed having a "heart to heart" pun in the thread title}

I've been comfortable tagging some <3_* stuff, but after reading topic #24889, maybe it's okay to alias these all to heart_*... JUST maybe...

Whichever way <3 ultimately goes, related tags should be consistent, so I don't think this BUR makes any sense until <3/heart itself is decided. Any existing <3_* tags shouldn't be aliased to heart_* if we're sticking with <3, and I don't think any aliases should be made to heart_* as long as <3_* can be used. And conversely, it doesn't make sense to make extra aliases to <3_* if the site ultimately decides heart_* is preferred.

I still think <3 (and by extension <3_*) is the way to go, since heart on its own is ambiguous (and similar for heart_tattoo, for example, which could be a tattoo of the actual organ or the symbol, so would also need disambiguation). Getting rid of <3 would just get confusing over which heart things are what, which are the organ, which are the symbol, and which need extra clarification. Keeping <3/<3_* for the symbolic heart shape clarifies it, so heart_* would always refer to the physical organ and <3_* always refer to the symbolic shape.

I should mention why my stance is such, my decision is based on an earlier suggestion in regards to the creation of the heart_(disambiguation) tag and the eventual thinking that a heart_symbol tag will come from the de-aliasing of <3/heart (topic #19294).

With this de-alias, <3 (which is associated with the symbol) will be aliased to heart_symbol while heart (which is vague/associated with the organ) will be aliased to heart_(disambiguation) with heart_(organ) being an option.
This creates for a more uniform and standardised base for the heart_* tags.

Now I can see the argument that <3_* and heart_* should be kept separate to differentiate between the symbol and organ.
I say that this is not necessary due to the rare nature of heart_(organ)-type posts, i.e. there would not be a lot of hand_hearts or heart_backgrounds depicting actual hearts.
Also, keeping separate <3_* and heart_* tags would not help in the standardisation.

Any depictions of actual hearts in the heart_* subtags would just fall under heart_(organ) anyways, making for easy blacklisting if needed.

Then, there is the little known heart_fetish/cardiophilia tags, which may feature actual hearts (e.g., post #1712838), heart symbols (e.g., post #352330), and anywhere in between (e.g., post #1518203).
Making for the discussion on separating <3_* and heart_* moot.

we do not need a disambiguation tag for heart, it's so insanely rare that heart_(organ) gets added to a post that it'd end up causing more problems than it'd ever possibly fix.
it's the same way we don't have a disambiguation of mario and the same with how all of the MLP characters' standard tags are meant for the FiM versions of the characters despite us having tags for other incarnations. 99.99% of images are tagged properly, 99.99% people know what the tags are meant for, and anyone who makes a mistake will either realize their mistake fairly quickly or someone will correct the error without much problem.

I'm torn on this. Personally, I don't care about whether or not all of the markings, etc. use <3_* or heart_*--they both have pros and cons--but from the sounds of it, people want all of the tags to be standardized, including <3 itself. I'd really like to be indifferent to this, but I can't. Not fully.

---

Anyways. That all aside, as far as the heart tail tags go...

• <3_tail appears to be used almost exclusively for Pikachu's tail heart marking. Negating pikachu from the search leaves just a couple of posts left, some look like literal heart-shaped tails. I'd move the few that don't appear to be markings, and then alias <3_tail to some tag name that better reflects it being a heart-shaped tail marking. Unless it's decided that's not a needed tag, in which case it could be aliased to the general base heart marking tag.
• Heart_shaped_tail has a post to it that just seems to be referring to Eevee's dipstick_tail. The rest I'm seeing are actually demon / spade_tails and should probably have the tag removed before an alias is made.

• Heart_tail has that same Eevee post as heart_shaped_tail, but otherwise it, and tail_<3 should be aliased somewhere. Preferably to a tag that's more obvious that it's referring to the gesture, not a marking or literal, naturally heart-shaped tail.
• On that note, should they imply gesture, after aliased? Hand_heart does. And should both the tail and hand variants of the gesture have an umbrella tag of some sort (which could be used potentially for any gesture or pose that creates a heart)?

Alternatively, they could all alias to a disambiguation and be manually sorted out to new, clearer tags. Not sure what's better.

Bumping, with the hopes of reinvigorating this topic (I've also made some edits to the BUR, as listed above).

I would like to get some solid opinions from folks on which set of tags to keep, <3_* or heart_*. Even if you feel slightly more favorable towards one option over the other, please cast your opinion as an either an upvote or downvote. If enough folks downvote this BUR, I can edit or cancel it and compile a new BUR focused on aliasing heart_* -> <3_*. If enough folks upvote this BUR, then the first batch of <3_* -> heart_* aliases can go through for approval.

Regardless of whichever set of tags is kept, I'm just hoping this debate can start moving forwards towards a decision.

I have a slight preference for <3, but I prefer more that something is done and this mess is cleared up. It will probably require the admins making a judgment call since the community so far seems split.

For example, heart_marking is up to 791 posts, and <3_marking is 395. That's quite a split. Though for the record heart_marking <3_marking status:any currently returns 147 posts if I counted right.

+1, and it's my final decision. I really love and prefer <3, but now I am willing to shatter it for the sake of standardization. Also, the word "heart" is the much better one to read than the phrase "less than three".

In my opinion, the following should be done:

• unalias heart_* -> <3_*

Reason: Currently heart_* tags and <3_* tags coexist, but some of the former are aliased to their latter counterpart and vice versa. Eventually, e621 will have to pick a side, and I believe that moving away from emoticons is better for parsing purposes.

I think at the very least there should be a clear distinction between the heart symbol and the heart organ, rather than just using heart and having to guess whether a particular use may need separation or not.

watsit said:
I think at the very least there should be a clear distinction between the heart symbol and the heart organ, rather than just using heart and having to guess whether a particular use may need separation or not.

Heart_(organ) exists. Although, I think that heart_(anatomy) would be preferable, to keep in line with all the other *_(anatomy) tags.

bitwolfy said:
Heart_(organ) exists. Although, I think that heart_(anatomy) would be preferable, to keep in line with all the other *_(anatomy) tags.

I was more meaning, a consistent way to delineate between the anatomy/organ, the symbol, and a disambiguation in the various tags (and which could easily apply to new tags too). That is, it wouldn't be good to have a tag like heart_eyes being for the heart symbol applied to eyes, while heart_tattoo isn't the heart symbol applied to tattoos but gets you a disambiguation instead (a trap casual taggers may fall into). Nor would it be good if you have tags like heart_(anatomy) and anatomical_heart_tattoo, making it unclear how to tag with reference to the anatomy/organ if it can change depending on use.

I don't think heart_symbol is a tag I can get behind. A tag that uses the term symbol should be able to be tagged as symbol and that tag would never be able to meet that standard IMO. It also will prevent the term from being used for use cases that don't fall under other heart subtags. Cases that use the heart shape more so for its symbolism rather than some arbitrary shape included in a design. Perhaps this is another knee jerk reaction, because I thought about creating a more specific definition for that symbol tag that wouldn't broadly include every heart shape.

heart_shape is a more agreeable term, but I think it is fine being <3 as is. Why does this need to be in this BUR?

thevileone said:
heart_shape is a more agreeable term, but I think it is fine being <3 as is. Why does this need to be in this BUR?

The main reason for the heart_symbol tag is to serve as a catch-all term for all instances of "<3 / ❤️" in posts. In other words, <3 is going to be aliased heart_symbol.
Most of the existing heart_* tags can also be implicated to it, such as heart_glasses, heart_pattern, heart_underwear, heart_background, etc.

Why the change from <3? Because we are trying to standardise between using <3_* or heart_* in tags.
As it currently stands, there is the inconsistency between which tag that should be used/aliased (e.g., heart_marking vs <3_marking).

The problem I can see which the indecision to the shift is because we are already accustomed to using <3 and are reluctant to change.
I can see the reasoning behind that as well, such as how the gender_symbols all have their own special tags like ♂ & ♀ (as opposed to male_symbol and female_symbol) and that some tags like ! & ? are tagged as such (and not exclamation_mark or question_mark).
What they don't realise is that there is a whole list of subtags associated with <3/heart, and there needs to be a standarisation between them.

Another issue I can see is with the blurring of "❤️" (heart_symbol) & "🫀" (heart_(organ)) in the heart_* tags.
I say that this is not a major concern as any instances of an anatomical heart in the heart_* posts will still get the heart_(organ) tag.
For example, heart_tattoo can encompass both heart_symbol and heart_(organ) type tattoos, with people searching for heart_tattoo heart_(organ) for anatomical heart tattoos and heart_tattoo -heart_(organ) for cartoonish heart tattoos.

Expanded from a different thread:

Perhaps we need symbol_(heart), symbol_(clubs), symbol_(diamonds), and symbol_(spades) tags. Not only would this remove them as non-ASCII characters, but would also group them together to make it easier to find them in the tag list as most do now (another advantage the current setup has). We could then expand them with other non-ASCII symbol tags such as symbol_(male), symbol_(female), and symbol_(herm).

Tags like !, ?, and ... are already ASCII characters, so don't need to be spelled out.

The format could potentially be further expanded for other tags that might benefit from being grouped together, such as eyes (eyes_(blue), eyes_(heart)), fur, hair, and markings.

Probably not going to fly too well, but at least you all can shoot it down now.

thegreatwolfgang said:
The main reason for the heart_symbol tag is to serve as a catch-all term for all instances of "<3 / ❤️" in posts. In other words, <3 is going to be aliased heart_symbol.
Most of the existing heart_* tags can also be implicated to it, such as heart_glasses, heart_pattern, heart_underwear, heart_background, etc.

Why the change from <3? Because we are trying to standardise between using <3_* or heart_* in tags.
As it currently stands, there is the inconsistency between which tag that should be used/aliased (e.g., heart_marking vs <3_marking).

The problem I can see which the indecision to the shift is because we are already accustomed to using <3 and are reluctant to change.
I can see the reasoning behind that as well, such as how the gender_symbols all have their own special tags like ♂ & ♀ (as opposed to male_symbol and female_symbol) and that some tags like ! & ? are tagged as such (and not exclamation_mark or question_mark).
What they don't realise is that there is a whole list of subtags associated with <3/heart, and there needs to be a standarisation between them.

Another issue I can see is with the blurring of "❤️" (heart_symbol) & "🫀" (heart_(organ)) in the heart_* tags.
I say that this is not a major concern as any instances of an anatomical heart in the heart_* posts will still get the heart_(organ) tag.
For example, heart_tattoo can encompass both heart_symbol and heart_(organ) type tattoos, with people searching for heart_tattoo heart_(organ) for anatomical heart tattoos and heart_tattoo -heart_(organ) for cartoonish heart tattoos.

My main concern is that eventually heart_symbol should imply symbol and if we consider every usage of the heart shape as a symbol we'd be dumping 143K posts into the symbol tag (albeit I think most of those posts would be symbolic anyways). I have to think about the benefit of grouping together the examples that actually use the symbolism in some way in the image. Giving a heart shaped box of chocolates, or heart eyes, and reacting with hearts. These are all symbolic usages. Heart markings, noses, features of clothing seem less symbolic, or rather case-by-case symbolic at least.

Changing the base tag to heart_symbol would remove the vessel to store these tags that would carry the symbol implication. Maybe I am overthinking it. It doesn't matter that much to me.

I removed update <3 -> heart_symbol from the BUR, since that seemed to accidentally complicate this BUR. Discussion over <3, heart_symbol, heart_shape, symbol_(heart), and other potential tag formats can resume separately from the BUR above.

I want the decision over this BUR to be simple and straightforward, should <3_* or heart_* be the standard tag format?

d.d.m. said:
I want the decision over this BUR to be simple and straightforward, should <3_* or heart_* be the standard tag format?

I vote for heart_*. In my opinion, we need less emoticon tags in general.

d.d.m. said:
I removed update <3 -> heart_symbol from the BUR, since that seemed to accidentally complicate this BUR. Discussion over <3, heart_symbol, heart_shape, symbol_(heart), and other potential tag formats can resume separately from the BUR above.

I want the decision over this BUR to be simple and straightforward, should <3_* or heart_* be the standard tag format?

Agreed, I can go with removing that alias for the time being since the naming doesn't seem ideal.
I vote for heart_* to make it more standardised and less messy in the wiki (imagine having butt_<3 as a tag even though there aren't any <3s in them).

Looks good to me. Although are you planning on implying stuff to <3 in the meantime. Might as well not have all of these heart tags floating around if they are going to be based around that tag or whatever it will turn into.

thevileone said:
Looks good to me. Although are you planning on implying stuff to <3 in the meantime. Might as well not have all of these heart tags floating around if they are going to be based around that tag or whatever it will turn into.

I plan on that eventually, and I'll address that sometime after it's determined whether <3_* or heart_* will be kept. There's also the question whether <3 should be replaced with something else (like heart_symbol, heart_shape, symbol_(heart), etc). I didn't include <3 aliases/implications in this BUR for the sake of keeping the decision over this BUR simple and straightforward.

*Charging Up The Defibrillator*

Live, Damn You!

d.d.m. said:
*Charging Up The Defibrillator*

Live, Damn You!

*Checks the heart rate monitor*

Oh no, it's less than three beats per minute!

9 positive votes, 7 neutral votes, 7 negative votes

It was submitted 5 months ago, so everyone had time to look at it. I don't see why not approve it now so we can move on from the issue. At the moment, tags with <3 and heart are in a limbo.

gattonero2001 said:
I don't see why not approve it now so we can move on from the issue.

Because more people voted unsure or no than voted yes. Even excluding the unsure votes, it's not much of a majority. Though not that this is a strictly democratic process, of course, the votes are really just guiding suggestions for the moderators who ultimately make the decision.

gattonero2001 said:
9 positive votes, 7 neutral votes, 7 negative votes

It was submitted 5 months ago, so everyone had time to look at it. I don't see why not approve it now so we can move on from the issue. At the moment, tags with <3 and heart are in a limbo.

10 ups actually, but I guess we still need to do more to win the hearts and minds of people. xD

Yeah, I'm not sure how much of a majority vote would be considered sufficient, but I figured this BUR needed more votes from folks before a decision could be made to approve/reject this BUR.

I figured the quantity of neutral votes on this BUR (after being combined with either the upvotes or the downvotes) wouldn't leave either decision with a clear majority, even though this BUR currently has slightly more upvotes.

The bulk update request #245 (forum #295683) has failed: Error: Alias would modify other aliases or implications through transitive relationships. (create alias <3_areola -> heart_areola)

Updated the BUR to hopefully avoid that error when going through the approval process.

The pending alias requests in topic #28499, topic #28500 and topic #28501 need to be rejected before <3_areola can be aliased to heart_areola.

@D.D.M.

The three alias requests that caused the BUR's failure were already rejected, so create alias <3_areola -> heart_areola can safely be added again with no issue.

The aliases <3_areola -> heart_areola and <3_nipples -> heart_nipples have been added back onto the list. Thank you for reminding me about these.

So… it looks like someone tried to approve this six months ago, but it failed due to previously pending aliases… but those have now been rejected, yet this has still been sitting for six months. Hmm.

Maybe change the [FAILED] in the thread title to [PENDING]? That way the staff know it's back up.

Bumping this because I've seen a few requests lately that either duplicate this or conflict with it.

Right. Shouldn't let this one fester any longer.
I think I'm gonna have to split this one up into multiple parts, just to make it easier to review.

The bulk update request #1729 is active.

create alias <3_background (0) -> heart_background (1042)
create alias <3_bg (0) -> heart_background (1042)
create alias heart_bg (0) -> heart_background (1042)
create alias hearts_bg (0) -> heart_background (1042)
create alias hearts_background (0) -> heart_background (1042)
create alias beige_heart (0) -> tan_heart (10)
create alias gray_heart (0) -> grey_heart (39)
create implication butt_heart (2605) -> butt (1012956)
create implication heart_shaped_bed (1) -> bed (183823)

Miscellaneous heart stuff.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1729 (forum #322967) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #1730 is active.

Heart nipples

EDIT: The bulk update request #1730 (forum #322968) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #1731 is active.

Heart markings

Changes:

• alias heart_marking -> heart_(marking) is being blocked by alias #54560. Pending review.
• alias <3_marking -> heart_(marking) same thing as above.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1731 (forum #322969) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #1732 is active.

Heart freckles, noses, pubes.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1732 (forum #322970) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #1733 is active.

Heart pawpads.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1733 (forum #322971) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #1734 is active.

Heart bras, boxers, panties, and pasties.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1734 (forum #322972) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #1735 is active.

Heart chokers and pillows.

Changes:

• implicate heart_pillow -> pillow has been removed - already exists in implication #38402.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1735 (forum #322973) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

Sorry about the BUR spam, everyone.
BUR #1731 is being blocked by alias #54560. The rest should be good to go.

Edit: Issue resolved, moving forward with the BUR.

The bulk update request #1729 (forum #322967) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #1730 (forum #322968) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #1731 (forum #322969) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #1732 (forum #322970) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #1733 (forum #322971) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #1734 (forum #322972) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #1735 (forum #322973) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #245 (forum #295683) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

There are still a few holdout tags that we ought to check out as well, see remaining <3_* tags & remaining heart-shaped_* tags.

Note: BUR proposal will be edited as discussions happen.

thegreatwolfgang said:

Cleanup BUR Proposal

alias <3_underwear -> heart_underwear
alias <3_necklace -> heart_necklace
alias <3_window -> heart_window
alias <3_shaped_box -> box_of_chocolates
alias <3-shaped_box -> box_of_chocolates
update heart_shaped_fur -> heart_(marking)
alias heart_shaped_box -> box_of_chocolates
alias heart-shaped_box -> box_of_chocolates
alias hearts_shaped_box -> box_of_chocolates
alias hearts-shaped_box -> box_of_chocolates

Hmm.
<3_shaped_box, <3-shaped_box, hearts_shaped_box, and hearts-shaped_box don't seem to exist.
I manually sorted out heart_shaped_fur – the only one left is post #404392, which I wouldn't call a "marking".

The rest seems okay, though.

bitwolfy said:
Hmm.
<3_shaped_box, <3-shaped_box, hearts_shaped_box, and hearts-shaped_box don't seem to exist.

They were added in to be consistent, considering how the previous BURs also did the same and aliased all variations to heart_*.
Alternatively, we could update heart_shaped_box to box_of_chocolates, but it wouldn't stop people from using the former tag.

Edit: I will be adding in heart_box into the alias since it's also a thing, and hearts_box/<3_box will also be added to remove any variations.

bitwolfy said:
The rest seems okay, though.

I will be editing the BUR proposal as more opinions come in.

In the meantime, I have added in two implications that were missing from the previous BURs.

• imply heart_background -> simple_background
• imply heart_(marking) -> markings

thegreatwolfgang said:
heart-shaped_princess_plug

If it's kept, it should be something like heart_shaped_jewel_buttplug to match the princess_plug -> jewel_buttplug alias.

animperfectpatsy said:
If it's kept, it should be something like heart_shaped_jewel_buttplug to match the princess_plug -> jewel_buttplug alias.

I'm not so keen on keeping the heart_shaped_* prefix since it's going to clash with the heart_* standardisation.
Perhaps heart_jewel_buttplug? That way we can also alias heart_shaped_bed to heart_bed.

Edit: Cleanup has been proposed in new BUR, see topic #32342.