The bulk update request #6753 is active.

create implication 1496 (1) -> 15th_century (23)
create implication 1549 (1) -> 16th_century (40)
create implication 1550 (1) -> 16th_century (40)
create implication 1552 (1) -> 16th_century (40)
create implication 1555 (1) -> 16th_century (40)
create implication 1581 (1) -> 16th_century (40)
create implication 1617 (1) -> 17th_century (44)
create implication 1642 (1) -> 17th_century (44)
create implication 1728 (1) -> 18th_century (62)
create implication 1759 (1) -> 18th_century (62)
create implication 1762 (1) -> 18th_century (62)
create implication 1782 (0) -> 18th_century (62)

Reason: Some more years to imply their respective centuries.

EDIT: The bulk update request #6753 (forum #392474) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6754 is active.

change category 1496 (1) -> meta
change category 1549 (1) -> meta
change category 1550 (1) -> meta
change category 1552 (1) -> meta
change category 1555 (1) -> meta
change category 1581 (1) -> meta
change category 1617 (1) -> meta
change category 1642 (1) -> meta
change category 1660 (1) -> meta
change category 1728 (1) -> meta
change category 1759 (1) -> meta
change category 1762 (1) -> meta
change category 1782 (0) -> meta
change category 12th_century_bc (2) -> meta
change category 13th_century_bc (1) -> meta

Reason: Metafying those years as well plus 1660 and a couple centuries BC as well.

EDIT: The bulk update request #6754 (forum #392475) has been approved by @slyroon.

Somewhat related, 1312 is not going to get this treatment since it's being used for when something related to ACAB is being portrayed. If (and remember, this is a big if) some art that was actually made in 1312 gets uploaded, we'll probably need a 1312_(year) tag instead.

clawstripe said:
Somewhat related, 1312 is not going to get this treatment since it's being used for when something related to ACAB is being portrayed. If (and remember, this is a big if) some art that was actually made in 1312 gets uploaded, we'll probably need a 1312_(year) tag instead.

I’m not sure what the significance of that number is, but wouldn’t it be easier to change it to 1312_(number) or similar? This would follow the formula of other number tags (ie. 69_(number)) and allow the year itself to remain consistent with all the other unsuffixed year tags.

scaliespe said:
I’m not sure what the significance of that number is, but wouldn’t it be easier to change it to 1312_(number) or similar? This would follow the formula of other number tags (ie. 69_(number)) and allow the year itself to remain consistent with all the other unsuffixed year tags.

1 - A
2 - B
3 - C

1312
ACAB

scaliespe said:
I’m not sure what the significance of that number is, but wouldn’t it be easier to change it to 1312_(number) or similar? This would follow the formula of other number tags (ie. 69_(number)) and allow the year itself to remain consistent with all the other unsuffixed year tags.

To build upon Donovan's answer, ACAB is short for All Cops Are Bastards, a motto of protesters who are anti-authority and anti-cop.

Right now, we currently have four pictures tagged 1312, none of which were actually made in the year 1312 AD and all related to ACAB, even if it's just wearing the number. That tells me that Users are going to be more likely to tag 1312 for the sentiment than the year, especially considering just how unlikely it is for something made in 1312 to be uploaded here. That's why I lean towards using a 1312_(year) meta tag if that unlikely day ever arrives.

clawstripe said:
To build upon Donovan's answer, ACAB is short for All Cops Are Bastards, a motto of protesters who are anti-authority and anti-cop.

Right now, we currently have four pictures tagged 1312, none of which were actually made in the year 1312 AD and all related to ACAB, even if it's just wearing the number. That tells me that Users are going to be more likely to tag 1312 for the sentiment than the year, especially considering just how unlikely it is for something made in 1312 to be uploaded here. That's why I lean towards using a 1312_(year) meta tag if that unlikely day ever arrives.

I feel that the number being used in this manner should be the one with the disambiguation, as 1312_(slogan) or something like that.

alien_fluff said:
I feel that the number being used in this manner should be the one with the disambiguation, as 1312_(slogan) or something like that.

If not changed to acab_(slogan). Acronyms are hard enough, but one that's been changed into numbers makes its meaning and proper use even less apparent.

1312 is actually visible in three of the four, so the number can be argued to be a TWYS element in the posts. I removed it from the fourth since it was being used in a TWYK sense as a reference to ACAB. I didn't add acab in any form to it, though, since it's just a comic of a protest turned riot.

In truth, 1312 as a tag arguably ought to be disambiguated since it could easily stand for either the ACAB slogan or the year, but an actual 1312_(disambiguation) tag seems rather pointless if there's no guarantee the year will ever be used. Perhaps it would probably be best to alias 1312 to 1312_(slogan), acab_(slogan), or something similar? That sense is more likely to be tagged (three/four times so far) than the year (who knows when, if ever). The year would be 1312_(year). However, I can easily see a hypothetical future User to tag 1312 and leave it at that, not realizing that they've just mistagged the post as the _(slogan) rather than the _(year).

Perhaps it would be best to do nothing with 1312 and just shift things over to the appropriate actual tags as things come up?

Nevertheless, Slyroon, whatever the fate of 1312, it doesn't impact the above BURs.

The bulk update request #6754 (forum #392475) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6753 (forum #392474) has been approved by @slyroon.

Given that that tag has only been used on 4 posts, I don't think this will end up being much of an issue either way. I'd say not alias anything, and simply move the three remaining uses of the tag over to something else, leaving 1312 empty. If it gets used again, removing it again is easy enough.

The bulk update request #6874 has been rejected.

change category 1312 (1) -> invalid

Reason: If it's not meant to be used, and artwork from year 1312 is meant to be tagged 1312_(year), it seems best to invalidate.

EDIT: The bulk update request #6874 (forum #393394) has been rejected by @SNPtheCat.

i don't know about 1312 being invalid/disambiguation, you got a lot of year tags that can be used as slogans (2000 may refer as y2k or other circumstance)

the slogan 1312 is just a secret word to acab and it's barely used that is not worth to be disambiguation. if someone types out 1312, it should have a window selection with 1312_(slogan) aliased to acab to avoid mistagging.

To tell the truth, I brought the 1312 thing up to gather opinions about it. I did take ScalieSpe's advice to retag the three currently affected posts to 1312_(slogan) and made the 1312 wiki into a sort of unofficial disambiguation wiki. Other than that, I'm content to kick the invalidation/disambiguation can down the road until someone actually uploads a "made in 1312" picture here. As I keep saying above, actual invalidation and disambiguation is meaningless until that happens, although there is no harm in figuring out how to futureproof it before then. Because I'm still unsure how best to proceed at this moment, if I even should. I do appreciate the thoughts you all are giving, because I'm obviously still indecisive

I highly highly doubt there will ever be a piece made in 1312 on here

cloudpie said:
I highly highly doubt there will ever be a piece made in 1312 on here

think again >:)

post #4630864

clawstripe said:

Other than that, I'm content to kick the invalidation/disambiguation can down the road until someone actually uploads a "made in 1312" picture here. As I keep saying above, actual invalidation and disambiguation is meaningless until that happens, although there is no harm in figuring out how to futureproof it before then. Because I'm still unsure how best to proceed at this moment, if I even should. I do appreciate the thoughts you all are giving, because I'm obviously still indecisive

Well it seems one has been uploaded.
Now it must be moved from the general category, either to invalid or meta

pleaseletmein said:
think again >:)

post #4630864

Incredible lmao thank you

I vote for 1312 to be moved to meta as a year tag so they stay consistent and 1312_(slogan) for the slogan. Or 1312_(slogan) could be aliased to acab or acab_(slogan)

pleaseletmein said:
think again >:)

post #4630864

post #2305115
Nice find.

The bulk update request #6897 is active.

change category 1312 (1) -> meta
create implication 1312 (1) -> 14th_century (13)

Reason: Let’s put it to a vote, then.

I don’t believe that this needs to be disambiguated. Both possible meanings are likely to be used extremely infrequently, so any mistags will be easy to fix, if we even have any. The existence of 1312_(slogan) in the tag suggestions field for anyone typing in the number will most likely direct people to the correct tag anyway.

One thing that’s nice about having a consistent formula for tags is that they’re predictable. You know that year tags are formatted in a certain way here - just the number with no suffix or anything else - so you can just type in a number and get the results for that year, if there are any. Making one random year tag into a disambiguation would break that system, regardless of how rarely used that year tag is. Let’s just keep it simple and keep the same formula we’ve always used.

EDIT: The bulk update request #6897 (forum #393521) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

pleaseletmein said:
think again >:)

post #4630864

I honestly was wondering how long this would take to happen. After all, wasn't I basically daring someone to? :p Good work. :D

Well, time to stop kicking and actually pick up the blasted can. I like Spe's scheme and logic best.

Thank you, all of you for the help. :)

The bulk update request #6874 (forum #393394) has been rejected by @SNPtheCat.

The bulk update request #6898 is active.

create implication 1621 (2) -> 17th_century (44)
change category 1621 (2) -> meta
create implication 1779 (1) -> 18th_century (62)
change category 1779 (1) -> meta
create implication 12th_century_bc (2) -> ancient_art (1721)
create implication 13th_century_bc (1) -> ancient_art (1721)

Reason: I missed one. :o

Edit: Sorry about this edit, but I also missed a couple of implications in the first two BURs, namely the two centuries BC to ancient_art. It would be more efficient to edit this BUR than to make a new one.

Edit the Second: Since this BUR is still active, I threw in 1779 as well.

I don't think you need to, but feel free to change your vote if you disagree.

EDIT: The bulk update request #6898 (forum #393537) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #6897 (forum #393521) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #6898 (forum #393537) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #9620 is active.

create implication 1410 (1) -> 15th_century (23)
change category 1410 (1) -> meta
create implication 1506 (1) -> 16th_century (40)
change category 1506 (1) -> meta
create implication 1661 (13) -> 17th_century (44)
change category 1661 (13) -> meta

Reason: A couple treble more years to metafy. (See Strikerman below.)

EDIT: The bulk update request #9620 (forum #423852) has been approved by @spe.

clawstripe said:
The bulk update request #9620 is active.

create implication 1410 (1) -> 15th_century (23)
change category 1410 (1) -> meta
create implication 1506 (1) -> 16th_century (40)
change category 1506 (1) -> meta
create implication 1661 (13) -> 17th_century (44)
change category 1661 (13) -> meta

Reason: A couple more years to metafy.

There's also 1506

The bulk update request #9620 (forum #423852) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #9788 is active.

create implication 1397 (1) -> 14th_century (13)
create implication 1493 (1) -> 15th_century (23)
create implication 1544 (1) -> 16th_century (40)
change category 1397 (1) -> meta
change category 1493 (1) -> meta
change category 1544 (1) -> meta
create implication 7th_century (1) -> ancient_art (1721)
change category 7th_century (1) -> meta
create implication 3rd_century (0) -> ancient_art (1721)
create implication 4th_century (0) -> ancient_art (1721)
create implication 5th_century (0) -> ancient_art (1721)
create implication 6th_century (0) -> ancient_art (1721)
create implication 8th_century (0) -> ancient_art (1721)
create implication 9th_century (0) -> ancient_art (1721)
create implication 11th_century (0) -> ancient_art (1721)
change category 3rd_century (0) -> meta
change category 4th_century (0) -> meta
change category 5th_century (0) -> meta
change category 6th_century (0) -> meta
change category 8th_century (0) -> meta
change category 9th_century (0) -> meta
change category 11th_century (0) -> meta

Reason: Found a couple more years to metafy as well as 7th_century. While we're here, what do you say about futureproofing all the currently unmetafied centuries back to the 1st century AD?

Addendum: I was going to metafy 1493 as well but forgot until SNPtheCat reminded me below. Whoops. Also added in implications to ancient_art.

EDIT: The bulk update request #9788 (forum #425481) has been approved by @spe.

clawstripe said:

Reason: Found a couple more years to metafy as well as 7th_century. While we're here, what do you say about futureproofing all the currently unmetafied centuries back to the 1st century AD?

Sure. Give them an ancient_art implication too.
Just realised that the 20th century tag is kinda weird, cutting off at 1979. Also do we want to have a 21st century tag

Also seems like you're missing 1493

snpthecat said:
Just realised that the 20th century tag is kinda weird, cutting off at 1979. Also do we want to have a 21st century tag

The weird cutoff at 1979 for 20th_century and the lack of 21st_century are deliberate. The century tags aren't for categorizing modern furry art so much as organizing ancient_art.

The modern furry fandom only really came into being about 1980 (give or take), so that year provides a convenient cutoff point for separating art predating the modern furry fandom and later art. Adding in the last two decades of the twentieth century would swamp the 20th_century tag to make it virtually useless for finding ancient art. This would make a 21st_century tag the outlier here since no art produced in this century qualifies as ancient_art, not to mention the sheer amount of posts that would fall in this tag would be getting absurdly worse with each passing year.

snpthecat said:
Also seems like you're missing 1493

Dagnabbit. I even had that opened up and readied to be part of the BUR, too.

The bulk update request #9788 (forum #425481) has been approved by @spe.