The bulk update request #9517 has been rejected.

create alias wold (1) -> wolf (329513)

Reason: Seems to be a fairly common typo - it's been edited off of posts about 39 times in 2024. When edited, it's almost always replaced by "wolf".

EDIT: The bulk update request #9517 (forum #422373) has been rejected by @kora_viridian.

Given the mehvotes, would it be better to either invalidate or disambiguate wold?

Maybe the argument is that it's not 100% guaranteed that it's a typo for wolf, so aliasing it won't always be correct.

kora_viridian said:
Given the mehvotes, would it be better to either invalidate or disambiguate wold?

Maybe the argument is that it's not 100% guaranteed that it's a typo for wolf, so aliasing it won't always be correct.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/wold I would not be shocked to see wolves in a wold, that is also wood(land)s.

Apparently, every single result was wolves, though. No shock.

Update for reference: 2 days ago it had 10+ posts under wold and now there is none.

In future, if someone wants to tag wolds and not intend it to be wolfes, then they can get a disambiguation going, or you know, use other tags for hills and forests.

kora_viridian said:
Given the mehvotes, would it be better to either invalidate or disambiguate wold?

Maybe the argument is that it's not 100% guaranteed that it's a typo for wolf, so aliasing it won't always be correct.

Aliasing (unlike implications) don't need to always be correct, since the errors can be sorted out. If 99% of the posts under wold are wolf, and/or the other things it could mean are pretty farfetched/unused, it probably can be aliased

Bumping before rejecting.

The bulk update request #9517 (forum #422373) has been rejected by @kora_viridian.

Before you ask: rejected because it was posted at the wrong time of day by a white name, so it ended up on the pile of 2,200+ BURs to be mass-rejected in the future.

The bulk update request #9904 is active.

create alias wold (1) -> wolf (329513)

Reason: I'm a tad more optimistic that this'll
a) get approved in the near future and
b) there will be no mass rejects of BURs in the future (because they can't block anything)

EDIT: The bulk update request #9904 (forum #433196) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #9904 (forum #433196) has been approved by @spe.

kora_viridian said:
Before you ask: rejected because it was posted at the wrong time of day by a white name, so it ended up on the pile of 2,200+ BURs to be mass-rejected in the future.

*with an old man voice*
Back in my day, there was not a single admin handling A/I/BURs, so all requests would inevitably sit pending for years!
Though to be honest, I just missed this one because I tend to check the BUR listing page much more than the forums themselves, so I’m less likely to notice a thread bump. It’s just much easier to read the requests on that page. Sorry.

spe said:
*with an old man voice*
Back in my day, there was not a single admin handling A/I/BURs, so all requests would inevitably sit pending for years!
Though to be honest, I just missed this one because I tend to check the BUR listing page much more than the forums themselves, so I’m less likely to notice a thread bump. It’s just much easier to read the requests on that page. Sorry.

Do you sort by newest or last updated

spe said:
Back in my day, there was not a single admin handling A/I/BURs, so all requests would inevitably sit pending for years!

I am aware. I've seen the receipts. :D

In recent history, peak A (~1,500) and peak I (~1,100) came in early January, 2024. Peak BUR (~2,400) was about a week later.

The Great Crash of 2024 got that down to A ~600 (mid March), I ~250 (early May), and BUR ~1,400 (early April).

Today, those numbers are A ~750, I ~280, and BUR ~2,250.

The next time I think of an AIBUR, I'll just DM it to SNP, let them propose it, and avoid untold travail. :D