The bulk update request #2858 is active.

change category 32:25 (0) -> meta
change category 25:32 (0) -> meta

Reason: Those aspect ratio tags are in the general tags category, but they should be in the meta tags category.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2858 (forum #340002) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2879 (forum #) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

There are many more aspect ratios not being in the meta category:
11:6, 32:41, 32:33, 13:16, 21:9, 9:21, 135:256, 17:11, 20:29, 13:14, 64:35, 9:10, 10:7, 17:9, 32:9, 6:7, 29:48, 9:17, 7:6, 40:19, 19:25, 8:9, 17:22, 35:18, 7:9, 15:19, 11:8, 11:9, 10:9, 33:50, 8:11, 100:99, 10:11, 21:17, 9:11, 13:19, 13:17, 22:17, 17:20, 16:13, 16:15, 20:17, 14:15, 27:22, 10:13, 13:12, 6:13, 16:21, 11:15, 13:15, 16:21, 24:23, 9:5, 23:26, 12:17, 29:25, 5:9, 11:12, 9:8, 13:10, 15:22, 50:59, 11:10, 17:19, 21:32, 16:11, 13:20, 18:25, 19:18, 11:14, 9:7, 23:30, 25:18, 15:16, 20:21, 26:27, 15:13, 2:5, 19:20, 14:19, 9:13, 22:15, 19:14, 15:14, 25:16, 11:17, 3:7, 11:13, 22:25, 13:18, 20:19, 11:16, 14:17, 17:12, 15:17, 19:21, 16:19, 12:19, 29:18, 31:37, 37:36, 5:33, 16:17, 19:11, 25:32, 12:25, 20:27, 24:37, 99:98, 13:6, 35:41, 28:39
(sorted from most to least used, with at least 10 images)

Then there are these four that use a non-standard format with half-numbers, which should preferably be aliased to their whole numbers for consistency:
9:19.5 → 18:39
9:18.5 → 18:37
19.5:9 → 39:18
18.5:9 → 37:18

liggliluff said:
There are many more aspect ratios not being in the meta category:
11:6, 32:41, 32:33, 13:16, 21:9, 9:21, 135:256, 17:11, 20:29, 13:14, 64:35, 9:10, 10:7, 17:9, 32:9, 6:7, 29:48, 9:17, 7:6, 40:19, 19:25, 8:9, 17:22, 35:18, 7:9, 15:19, 11:8, 11:9, 10:9, 33:50, 8:11, 100:99, 10:11, 21:17, 9:11, 13:19, 13:17, 22:17, 17:20, 16:13, 16:15, 20:17, 14:15, 27:22, 10:13, 13:12, 6:13, 16:21, 11:15, 13:15, 16:21, 24:23, 9:5, 23:26, 12:17, 29:25, 5:9, 11:12, 9:8, 13:10, 15:22, 50:59, 11:10, 17:19, 21:32, 16:11, 13:20, 18:25, 19:18, 11:14, 9:7, 23:30, 25:18, 15:16, 20:21, 26:27, 15:13, 2:5, 19:20, 14:19, 9:13, 22:15, 19:14, 15:14, 25:16, 11:17, 3:7, 11:13, 22:25, 13:18, 20:19, 11:16, 14:17, 17:12, 15:17, 19:21, 16:19, 12:19, 29:18, 31:37, 37:36, 5:33, 16:17, 19:11, 25:32, 12:25, 20:27, 24:37, 99:98, 13:6, 35:41, 28:39
(sorted from most to least used, with at least 10 images)

Then there are these four that use a non-standard format with half-numbers, which should preferably be aliased to their whole numbers for consistency:
9:19.5 → 18:39
9:18.5 → 18:37
19.5:9 → 39:18
18.5:9 → 37:18

You could have made a BUR out of this, since you went to the trouble of tracking them all down.

The bulk update request #2861 is active.

change category 11:6 (0) -> meta
change category 32:41 (0) -> meta
change category 32:33 (0) -> meta
change category 13:16 (0) -> meta
change category 21:9 (0) -> meta
change category 9:21 (0) -> meta
change category 135:256 (299) -> meta
change category 17:11 (0) -> meta
change category 20:29 (0) -> meta
change category 13:14 (0) -> meta
change category 64:35 (0) -> meta
change category 9:10 (1) -> meta
change category 10:7 (0) -> meta
change category 17:9 (0) -> meta
change category 32:9 (0) -> meta
change category 6:7 (0) -> meta
change category 29:48 (0) -> meta
change category 9:17 (0) -> meta
change category 7:6 (0) -> meta
change category 40:19 (0) -> meta
change category 19:25 (0) -> meta
change category 8:9 (0) -> meta
change category 17:22 (0) -> meta
change category 35:18 (0) -> meta
change category 7:9 (0) -> meta

Reason: Same as parent topic #34538

EDIT: The bulk update request #2861 (forum #340023) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #2862 is active.

change category 15:19 (0) -> meta
change category 11:8 (88) -> meta
change category 11:9 (0) -> meta
change category 10:9 (0) -> meta
change category 33:50 (0) -> meta
change category 8:11 (0) -> meta
change category 100:99 (0) -> meta
change category 10:11 (0) -> meta
change category 21:17 (0) -> meta
change category 9:11 (0) -> meta
change category 13:19 (0) -> meta
change category 13:17 (0) -> meta
change category 22:17 (0) -> meta
change category 17:20 (0) -> meta
change category 16:13 (0) -> meta
change category 16:15 (0) -> meta
change category 20:17 (0) -> meta
change category 14:15 (0) -> meta
change category 27:22 (0) -> meta
change category 10:13 (0) -> meta
change category 13:12 (0) -> meta
change category 6:13 (165) -> meta
change category 16:21 (0) -> meta
change category 11:15 (0) -> meta
change category 13:15 (0) -> meta

Reason: Same as parent topic #34538

EDIT: The bulk update request #2862 (forum #340024) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #2863 is active.

change category 24:23 (0) -> meta
change category 9:5 (0) -> meta
change category 23:26 (0) -> meta
change category 12:17 (0) -> meta
change category 29:25 (0) -> meta
change category 5:9 (0) -> meta
change category 11:12 (0) -> meta
change category 9:8 (0) -> meta
change category 13:10 (0) -> meta
change category 15:22 (0) -> meta
change category 50:59 (0) -> meta
change category 11:10 (0) -> meta
change category 17:19 (0) -> meta
change category 21:32 (0) -> meta
change category 16:11 (0) -> meta
change category 13:20 (0) -> meta
change category 18:25 (0) -> meta
change category 19:18 (0) -> meta
change category 11:14 (0) -> meta
change category 9:7 (0) -> meta
change category 23:30 (0) -> meta
change category 25:18 (0) -> meta
change category 15:16 (0) -> meta
change category 20:21 (0) -> meta

Reason: Same as parent topic #34538

EDIT: The bulk update request #2863 (forum #340025) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #2864 is active.

change category 26:27 (0) -> meta
change category 15:13 (0) -> meta
change category 2:5 (0) -> meta
change category 19:20 (0) -> meta
change category 14:19 (0) -> meta
change category 9:13 (0) -> meta
change category 22:15 (0) -> meta
change category 19:14 (0) -> meta
change category 15:14 (0) -> meta
change category 25:16 (0) -> meta
change category 11:17 (0) -> meta
change category 3:7 (0) -> meta
change category 11:13 (0) -> meta
change category 22:25 (0) -> meta
change category 13:18 (0) -> meta
change category 20:19 (0) -> meta
change category 11:16 (0) -> meta
change category 14:17 (0) -> meta
change category 17:12 (0) -> meta
change category 15:17 (0) -> meta
change category 19:21 (0) -> meta
change category 16:19 (0) -> meta
change category 12:19 (0) -> meta
change category 29:18 (0) -> meta
change category 31:37 (0) -> meta

Reason: Same as parent topic #34538

EDIT: The bulk update request #2864 (forum #340026) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #2865 is active.

change category 37:36 (0) -> meta
change category 5:33 (0) -> meta
change category 16:17 (0) -> meta
change category 19:11 (0) -> meta
change category 12:25 (0) -> meta
change category 20:27 (0) -> meta
change category 24:37 (0) -> meta
change category 99:98 (0) -> meta
change category 13:6 (0) -> meta
change category 35:41 (0) -> meta
change category 28:39 (0) -> meta
change category 18:39 (0) -> meta
change category 18:37 (0) -> meta
change category 39:18 (0) -> meta
change category 37:18 (0) -> meta

Reason: Same as parent topic #34538

EDIT: The bulk update request #2865 (forum #340027) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

absolute gigalad waydence went and actually did it!

The bulk update request #2866 has been rejected.

mass update 9:19.5 -> 18:39
mass update 9:18.5 -> 18:37
mass update 19.5:9 -> 39:18
mass update 18.5:9 -> 37:18

Reason:

liggliluff said:
...there are these four that use a non-standard format with half-numbers, which should preferably be aliased to their whole numbers for consistency:

electricitywolf might as well rename topic to "Aspect ratio BUR"

EDIT: The bulk update request #2866 (forum #340030) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

dripen_arn said:
absolute gigalad waydence went and actually did it!

Not a big deal, writing a list is a matter of minutes, liggliluff did most of the work here.

The bulk update request #2858 (forum #340002) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #2861 (forum #340023) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #2862 (forum #340024) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #2863 (forum #340025) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #2864 (forum #340026) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #2865 (forum #340027) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #2866 (forum #340030) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

waydence said:
The bulk update request #2866 has been rejected.

mass update 9:19.5 -> 18:39
mass update 9:18.5 -> 18:37
mass update 19.5:9 -> 39:18
mass update 18.5:9 -> 37:18

Reason: electricitywolf might as well rename topic to "Aspect ratio BUR"

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Pup will bonk me on the head if I approved this.
In case you don't know, they run a bot that automatically adds most common aspect ratio tags to posts.

The problem here is that aspect ratio tags are supposed to be exact.
If you wanted to search for non-exact ratios, you can already do that by (for example) searching for ratio:0.46153846153 (9:19.5).
Aliasing that decimal-digit tag to the closest whole number goes against this paradigm.

bitwolfy said:
Aliasing that decimal-digit tag to the closest whole number goes against this paradigm.

but 9:19.5 and 18:39 are the same ratio, likewise 9:18.5 = 18:37... it's just multiplying both factors by 2.

bitwolfy said:
Aliasing that decimal-digit tag to the closest whole number goes against this paradigm.

...But they were aliasing 9:19.5 to 18:39, not 9:20?

wat8548 said:
...But they were aliasing 9:19.5 to 18:39, not 9:20?

deleuzian_cattery said:
but 9:19.5 and 18:39 are the same ratio, likewise 9:18.5 = 18:37... it's just multiplying both factors by 2.

Ah fuck. I misread it.
Sorry.

The bulk update request #2879 (forum #) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #3331 is active.

change category 18:17 (0) -> meta
change category 43:48 (0) -> meta
change category 60:47 (0) -> meta
change category 35:12 (0) -> meta
change category 12:11 (0) -> meta

Reason: Add to above.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3331 (forum #345748) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #3331 (forum #345748) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #3341 is pending approval.

create alias 9:21 (0) -> 3:7 (0)
create alias 18:39 (0) -> 6:13 (165) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur
create alias 39:18 (0) -> 13:6 (0) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur

Reason: Alias the divisible ratio.

drag007 said:
The bulk update request #3341 is pending approval.

create alias 9:21 (0) -> 3:7 (0)
create alias 18:39 (0) -> 6:13 (165) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur
create alias 39:18 (0) -> 13:6 (0) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur

Reason: Alias the divisible ratio.

Um, what should i do with this?

drag007 said:
The bulk update request #3341 is pending approval.

create alias 9:21 (0) -> 3:7 (0)
create alias 18:39 (0) -> 6:13 (165) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur
create alias 39:18 (0) -> 13:6 (0) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur

Reason: Alias the divisible ratio.

Going to need to

unalias 9:19.5 -> 18:39
unalias 19.5:9  -> 39:18

as well so they can be realiased to the smaller whole ratio à la

alias 9:19.5 -> 6:13
alias 19.5:9  -> 13:6

wait so what do we generally do, aliasing it to smaller numbers, or aliasing it to more common numbers, which may not be the smallest?
cause things like 21:9 can be shrunken down to 7:3, but its actually currently aliased the other way around

The bulk update request #3356 has been rejected.

create alias 9:18 (0) -> 1:2 (5718)
change category 12:7 (0) -> meta
change category 14:11 (0) -> meta
change category 18:13 (0) -> meta
change category 12:13 (0) -> meta
change category 27:20 (0) -> meta
change category 16:23 (0) -> meta
change category 6:11 (0) -> meta
change category 19:17 (0) -> meta
change category 25:14 (0) -> meta
change category 15:23 (0) -> meta
change category 17:14 (0) -> meta
change category 3:8 (0) -> meta
change category 8:3 (0) -> meta
change category 41:50 (0) -> meta
change category 20:13 (0) -> meta
change category 20:23 (0) -> meta
change category 18:19 (0) -> meta
change category 33:40 (0) -> meta
change category 17:24 (0) -> meta
change category 23:25 (0) -> meta
change category 25:29 (0) -> meta
change category 15:11 (0) -> meta

Reason: Turns out, there are lots more to come!
tags with at least 10 posts as of creating this.
Chopped off the 4 digit ratio, and added aliasing 9:18 to 1:2

Update: Someone cleaned up the tags so uh... Not really sure how useful this BUR is now

EDIT: The bulk update request #3356 (forum #346246) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

what's with these dimensions like 6071:8598 that are really close to a ratio of √2 yet still not as close as they could be (6071:8586 would be closer, for example)?

deleuzian_cattery said:
what's with these dimensions like 6071:8598 that are really close to a ratio of √2 yet still not as close as they could be (6071:8586 would be closer, for example)?

its possible that the original canvas is one of the A# paper sizes, since the dimensions of them are defined to have a ratio of √2, and maybe +- some formatting

6071:8598 is B4 size. This is a standard called Japanese variation and is distributed in some countries including Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size

A list that allows you to easily check the standard (It is written about the number of pixels in Japanese) http://www.sizeall.sakura.ne.jp/abpixel.php

drag007 said:
6071:8598 is B4 size. This is a standard called Japanese variation and is distributed in some countries including Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size

A list that allows you to easily check the standard (It is written about the number of pixels in Japanese) http://www.sizeall.sakura.ne.jp/abpixel.php

it'd probably be best to call it something like 1:sqrt2 or metric_paper_ratio or something, using 4+ digit starts to become meaningless

darryus said:
it'd probably be best to call it something like 1:sqrt2 or metric_paper_ratio or something using 4+ digit starts to become meaningless

Excluding the current major standards, 100:99 is the largest meta tag number, but how far is this ratio generally accepted?
1-30 is the confirmed tolerance.

Should I move the nonstandard ratios (aka anything above 100:00) to a different BUR?

Edit: thanks m3g4p0n1

liggliluff said:
I don't know how to create a BUR in a comment

You put the topic ID in the bottom box saying "Forum topic". In this case, "34538"

Edit:

liggliluff said:
Edit: thanks m3g4p0n1

No problemo post #3685207

The bulk update request #3963 has been rejected.

change category 18:23 (0) -> meta
change category 25:23 (0) -> meta
change category 32:27 (0) -> meta
change category 30:23 (0) -> meta
change category 17:25 (0) -> meta
change category 25:27 (0) -> meta
change category 17:15 (0) -> meta
change category 17:21 (0) -> meta
change category 19:24 (0) -> meta
change category 31:40 (0) -> meta
change category 24:25 (0) -> meta
change category 8:15 (0) -> meta
change category 16:25 (0) -> meta
change category 19:15 (0) -> meta
change category 23:20 (0) -> meta
change category 8:13 (0) -> meta
change category 13:9 (0) -> meta
change category 11:20 (0) -> meta
change category 20:11 (0) -> meta
change category 17:18 (0) -> meta
change category 25:26 (0) -> meta
change category 5:2 (0) -> meta
change category 25:19 (0) -> meta
change category 13:11 (0) -> meta

Reason: Additional aspect ratios

EDIT: The bulk update request #3963 (forum #355361) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

Anything not listed on tag_group:aspect_ratios should be discarded, I've already cleared out anything not listed there, and have an automated script removing anything not listed there running daily, because we do not need a tag for each and every ratio

donovan_dmc said:
Anything not listed on tag_group:aspect_ratios should be discarded, I've already cleared out anything not listed there, and have an automated script removing anything not listed there running daily, because we do not need a tag for each and every ratio

the ones that remain are still a bit odd. like, why keep both 7:4 and 16:9? why 256:135 rather than 17:9?

sipothac said:
the ones that remain are still a bit odd. like, why keep both 7:4 and 16:9? why 256:135 rather than 17:9?

full list

10:9 = 1.11 (?)
6:5 = 1.2
5:4 = 1.25
4:3 = 1.33
11:8 = 1.375 (¿)
7:5 = 1.4 (?)
13:9 = 1.44 (?)
3:2 = 1.5
14:9 = 1.55 (¿)
16:10 = 1.6
5:3 = 1.66
7:4 = 1.75 (¿)
16:9 = 1.77
17:9 = 1.88 (?)
256:135 = 1.896 (¿)
2:1 = 2
21:9 = 2.33
24:9 = 2.66 (?)
3:1 = 3

the ones marked (?) I feel like should exist but don't (¿) are the ones that probably aren't necessarily or maybe should be replaced.

same applies to the portrait layout equivalents.

What's left over is what either is actually widely used, what people could come up with a use for or were listed in the wikipedia page for aspect ratios
I still disagree with 256:135 & 135:256, but it's listed there
It's also being automatically tagged by pup, so I can't clear it out either way

TBH, I've never seen a reason to add them manually. If pop9pup bot thinks they're 1:1 or absurd_megabyteage, then I can use the bot's tags to find stuff like that. Who was adding unusual sizes manually? (Rhetorical, we can actually look that up)

alphamule said:
TBH, I've never seen a reason to add them manually. If pop9pup bot thinks they're 1:1 or absurd_megabyteage, then I can use the bot's tags to find stuff like that. Who was adding unusual sizes manually? (Rhetorical, we can actually look that up)

I've only ever added a ratio tag if re621 suggested it to me. I think Pup's bot has added a few others.

I'm not taking the time out of my day to calculate the aspect ratio otherwise (unless it was something obvious like 1:1 or 1:2), and don't understand why people are crazy enough to waste their time on something so pointless.

The bulk update request #3963 (forum #355361) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #3356 (forum #346246) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.