Topic: Twins BUR

The bulk update request #3707 is pending approval.

create implication identical_twins (342) -> twins (0)
create implication fraternal_twins (586) -> twins (0)
create implication twin_sisters (31) -> twins (0)
create implication twin_sisters (31) -> sibling (0)
create implication twin_sisters (31) -> sisters (0)
create implication twin_sisters (31) -> sister (0)
create implication twin_brothers (46) -> twins (0)
create implication twin_brothers (46) -> sibling (0)
create implication twin_brothers (46) -> brothers (0)
create implication twin_brothers (46) -> brother (0)

Reason: All these tags basically define different twin types.

zenith-pendragon said:
create implication twin_sisters (20) -> sibling (30478)

create implication twin_sisters (20) -> sister (19672)

create implication twin_brothers (41) -> sibling (30478)

create implication twin_brothers (41) -> brother (19469)

These are redundant. Twins already implies sibling, and sisters/brothers already imply sister/brother, respectively.

Though I do wonder if this should go through. The familial relationship tags really should be _(lore) tags, and adding more implications will make it harder to change them later.

watsit said:
These are redundant. Twins already implies sibling, and sisters/brothers already imply sister/brother, respectively.

Though I do wonder if this should go through. The familial relationship tags really should be _(lore) tags, and adding more implications will make it harder to change them later.

I'm all up to aliasing parental and relative relationship tags to lore tags, hopefully tags like "mother_(lore)" and "father_(lore)" should prevent some people from tagging "Mother" and "Father" for hot-looking daddies and milfs.