Topic: Is this memes? (BUR)

The bulk update request #9398 is pending approval.

Reason: "Drawyourfursona" started out as an alternate tag for the Twitter hoodie but then it took on a life of its own. The rest of these should be self explanatory. Feel free to add any I missed!

See also topic #46535, an unresolved request to make paggi_outfit imply meme_clothing.

(note to self: add cheese slap to the followup BUR)

errorist said:
Reason: "Drawyourfursona" started out as an alternate tag for the Twitter hoodie but then it took on a life of its own.

Aliasing it to meme_clothing doesn't make sense since not all uses are meme clothing, or even have clothing at all:
post #4794341 post #4286451 post #4135128 post #3084678
The name doesn't indicate it's for anything clothing-related either.

Well, I have no idea what those four are even supposed to be. Is it necessary to have a tag for "person drew this thing in response to an explicit prompt to do so and not just because it's a trend" specifically? Because I brought up the idea of a drawing_prompt tag for that at one point and it didn't go over well.

errorist said:
Well, I have no idea what those four are even supposed to be. Is it necessary to have a tag for "person drew this thing in response to an explicit prompt to do so and not just because it's a trend" specifically? Because I brought up the idea of a drawing_prompt tag for that at one point and it didn't go over well.

I don't even think it's necessary to have a tag for "person drew this thing because it's a trend", and memes should be held to a higher standard where there's something intrinsic to the idea that makes it unique or bordering on absurd and not something people would otherwise think to draw on their own. For instance, there's nothing that unique about a character wearing a hoodie and underwear, it's entirely possible for people to draw characters like that without being aware of any trend. It shouldn't be able to apply retroactively to pre-existing images, or to images made without any awareness to the trend/meme, IMO.

Bump because I have been gradually adding to this list over the course of the last few months, every time I find a new meme tag that doesn't imply meme yet. Feel free to chime in with any others you know of, or make a mental note to pop back in here and mention them whenever you find one.

The bulk update request #12047 is pending approval.

Reason: Ran out of slots, starting a new set. Feel free to weigh in on the first set now; I can just as easily remove lines after the fact as I added them.

These two are already set to imply meme so I think that'll need to be removed before this part can run:

implicate rental_mommy -> meme_clothing
implicate women_want_me_fish_fear_me -> meme_clothing

errorist said:
These two are already set to imply meme so I think that'll need to be removed before this part can run:

implicate rental_mommy -> meme_clothing
implicate women_want_me_fish_fear_me -> meme_clothing

No, they can be run in tandem. Meme doesn't imply meme_clothing after all

Huh. For some reason I thought the system rejects requests that create an A->B, B->C, A->C relationship because it would result in A implying C twice. But it worked. Should I include the A->C removal in the script anyway? I don't think any of the other meme_clothing tags imply meme directly.

errorist said:
Huh. For some reason I thought the system rejects requests that create an A->B, B->C, A->C relationship because it would result in A implying C twice. But it worked. Should I include the A->C removal in the script anyway? I don't think any of the other meme_clothing tags imply meme directly.

You should remove A->C.
The system stops you from making the implication A->C if A->B & B->C, But you can imply both A->B and B->C when A->C is in place

errorist said:
Should I include the A->C removal in the script anyway?

It would probably be a good idea. Not only would it keep things from getting convoluted, but would make things easier should we ever need to reshuffle the implications again.