The bulk update request #10115 is pending approval.

create alias aged_up (11790) -> aged_up_(lore) (0) # has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
change category aged_up_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
create alias aged_down (3008) -> aged_down_(lore) (0) # has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
change category aged_down_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing

Reason: The wiki page for these tags states, "Characters depicted as looking [older/younger] than their original form." Characters' "original form" can only be determined through external information, which is inapplicable to TWYS.

beholding said:
create alias aged_down (2978) -> aged_up_(lore)

Heads up, that alias is going the wrong way.

Fixed, thank you.

The bulk update request #10116 is pending approval.

remove alias age-up (0) -> aged_up (11790)
remove alias age_up (0) -> aged_up (11790)
remove alias aged-up (0) -> aged_up (11790)
remove alias agedup (0) -> aged_up (11790)
remove alias grown_up (0) -> aged_up (11790)
remove alias older (0) -> aged_up (11790)
remove alias younger (0) -> aged_down (3008)

Reason: Transitive relationships that need to be removed for this BUR to complete.

Recommended additions to the above BUR:

alias age-up -> aged_up_(lore)
alias age_up -> aged_up_(lore)
alias aged-up -> aged_up_(lore)
alias agedup -> aged_up_(lore)
alias grown_up -> aged_up_(lore)
alias older -> aged_up_(lore)
alias age-down -> aged_down_(lore)
alias age_down -> aged_down_(lore)
alias aged-down -> aged_down_(lore)
alias ageddown -> aged_down_(lore)
alias younger -> aged_down_(lore)

Also found an "age swap" tag that might be worth BURing.

category age_swap_(lore) -> lore
alias age_swap -> age_swap_(lore)
imply age_swap_(lore) -> aged_up_(lore)
imply age_swap_(lore) -> aged_down_(lore)
alias age-swap -> age_swap_(lore)
alias ageswap -> age_swap_(lore)

In favour of the BUR, I suspect the opposition to this tag will be the same as the opposition to lorification of crossgender
Edit: Huh I thought there was more opposition

snpthecat said:
In favour of the BUR, I suspect the opposition to this tag will be the same as the opposition to lorification of crossgender

it is.
currently everything under *_(lore) has a very strict definition, in that it's entirely decided by the artist intention, aged_up and aged_down, like the other alternate_*-type tags, are decided by the contents of the post in relation to the standard canon depictions.

_{also unrelated to that, I just kinda hate these two tags, I never really understood what their use case was supposed to be. if a character's originally depicted as a child but ages in later instalments are depictions of the later versions of the character aged_up? if a character is depicted a couple of times as an adult in canon media but is still regularly depicted as a child in most pieces of media afterwards aged_up? if a character who's depicted as an adult in a one-off instalment/episode a few times but usually is shown as a child aged_up if their canon adult version is depicted?}

dba_afish said:
it is.
currently everything under *_(lore) has a very strict definition, in that it's entirely decided by the artist intention, aged_up and aged_down, like the other alternate_*-type tags, are decided by the contents of the post in relation to the standard canon depictions.

I don't see why that would be an issue.

Tangential, but why was the first crossgender lore BUR rejected when it had so many upvotes? I agree it should also be lore by the same reasoning.

Neutral because I feel this should be a twys tag, as in, it should follow visual appearance of age, not just artist's intent. We do already have adult_(lore) and young_(lore) for artist's intent regarding age. In general my opinions tend to be further from the twys purism side though so I understand why the canon part is an issue for some. Just, imo, I don't see it as an issue really

beholding said:
I don't see why that would be an issue.

Tangential, but why was the first crossgender lore BUR rejected when it had so many upvotes? I agree it should also be lore by the same reasoning.

Self rejection. The second BUR is better because we're gonna need to port em all

wandering_spaniel said:
Neutral because I feel this should be a twys tag, as in, it should follow visual appearance of age, not just artist's intent.

I believe the only time these two elements could come into conflict is when an artist says the character is different from their canon age but they look visually identical, which I think is vanishingly rare because, well, why would you draw aged up/down art if not to make them look different?

That said, I did recently come across pool #30621 which features a supposedly aged-up Tails who still looks young to me. But even then, I think he looks like an adolescent as opposed to his canonical child appearance, so aged up would still be valid.