The bulk update request #7111 is pending approval.

Reason: This BUR sets up a couple missing lore tags for relationships for adopted characters, since right now they don't exist, leading to posts being tagged things like adopted_(lore) parent_and_child_(lore) even though they're not supposed to be (according to the wikis).

Also, despite adoptive_brothers_(lore) and adoptive_sisters_(lore) already existing, adoptive_brother_and_sister_(lore) does not.

Specifically it establishes:

• adoptive_parent_(lore)
• adoptive_parent_and_child_(lore)
• adoptive_mother_and_child_(lore)
• adoptive_father_and_child_(lore)
• adoptive_parent_and_daughter_(lore)
• adoptive_parent_and_son_(lore)
• adoptive_mother_and_daughter_(lore)
• adoptive_mother_and_son_(lore)
• adoptive_father_and_daughter_(lore)
• adoptive_father_and_son_(lore)
• adoptive_brother_and_sister_(lore)

I'm iffy on the layers here but it's matching the setup of the non-adoptive family tags, and the step-family tags as well, so if the tree should be flattened that's a different discussion. All this does is set up tags that should theoretically be usable in the current system but aren't.

As a result of these tags not existing a lot of stuff gets mistagged as stepfamily. adopted_(lore) stepparent_(lore)

In-laws have the same issue so I probably need to make that BUR too, sigh...

I'm still unsure if the loose *parent_(lore) tags are really necessary, they're kind of redundant with the *_and_child_(lore) tags.

sipothac said:
I'm still unsure if the loose *parent_(lore) tags are really necessary, they're kind of redundant with the *_and_child_(lore) tags.

I would agree, but like I said, I'm just matching the existing trees. If someone wants to make a BUR suggesting those be merged then I'm glad to edit my BURs as appropriate.