The bulk update request #392 is active.

Reason: A number of years should be switched over to the meta category as has been done with years from 1980 to 2020.

Edit: 11/16/2020 All the remaining years between 1800 and 1979 inclusive have been added for futureproofing.

EDIT: The bulk update request #392 (forum #299611) has been approved by @Millcore.

+1 for all of these, and great job finding all of these, I can only imagine how time consuming it must've been.

But - would it not also make sense to just switch everything from say, 1700 to 1980 all at once, irregardless of whether it's in use or not? We might not have anything for 1908 at the moment but considering we have posts 1907 and 1909 it's completely likely something could eventually turn up.

faucet said:
+1 for all of these, and great job finding all of these, I can only imagine how time consuming it must've been.

Thank you. Though I must admit that the most time consuming part was not getting distracted by the pictures when checking to see how the tags were populated. :p Even so, I still ended up searching for information for a few tags as well a better version of a pre-existing upload.

But - would it not also make sense to just switch everything from say, 1700 to 1980 all at once, irregardless of whether it's in use or not? We might not have anything for 1908 at the moment but considering we have posts 1907 and 1909 it's completely likely something could eventually turn up.

I think so, if only for futureproofing. I was going to address it in Timesourcing , by suggesting moderators switch over every year between 1850 to 1979 (the second half of the 19th century and most of the 20th), but decided to just focus on the tags we already have, since I didn't know if the moderators/administration would be amenable to dealing with tags not being used.

Assuming they are, how far back should we switch over the currently unused years? I thought back to 1850 would be sufficient, but Faucet recommends 1700. It wouldn't be difficult to add them in, just repetitive.

clawstripe said:
Assuming they are, how far back should we switch over the currently unused years? I thought back to 1850 would be sufficient, but Faucet recommends 1700. It wouldn't be difficult to add them in, just repetitive.

maybe i should upload pics of knights fighting snails from the 1300s

To not make this a total tangent, is there a tag for images where their date is unknown or vague? Even beyond historical works, I have to imagine that at least a few furry artists have an old archive sitting on some chan or MEGA folder with no dates.

strikerman said:
To not make this a total tangent, is there a tag for images where their date is unknown or vague? Even beyond historical works, I have to imagine that at least a few furry artists have an old archive sitting on some chan or MEGA folder with no dates.

unknown_year, but it seems to be very rarely used.

strikerman said:
maybe i should upload pics of knights fighting snails from the 1300s

To not make this a total tangent, is there a tag for images where their date is unknown or vague? Even beyond historical works, I have to imagine that at least a few furry artists have an old archive sitting on some chan or MEGA folder with no dates.

I believe there was one post that dates back to Ancient Eygpt.
post #53247
So, if you're looking for furry porn that goes back before the Anno Domini years, there you go.

As for the unknown_year tag, I don't see a real need for it other than it being a temporary placeholder for a potential year tag to be added later on.
Leaving it blank does the same thing though, so I don't know why people would be searching for posts without years in them.

I've decided to add in the remaining years since and including 1800 (although I could have missed one or two without realizing it) for futureproofing. I think the past two centuries are most likely to have artwork uploaded from a year in it. It's a half century more than what I was originally thinking, but not as far back as Faucet's 1700.

Again, how far back should this go? Back to 1700? Further back? Remove those I added today? Obviously, any years not covered by the final approval (ie. anything before 1800/whatever the year ends up being that's not already in this list) will have to be added in separately.

I just want to point out that there is a ancient_furry_art tag. One of those posts - post #1362256 - dates back to 480 BC.
I would suggest only having year tags from 1901 to present day, since it is the 1970s when contemporary furries start to emerge.

Anything before the year 1901 would get the 19th century (1801-1900) , 18th century (1701-1800), ... , 1st century (1-100) tags; and anything before year 1 gets the before_common_era tag.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I just want to point out that there is a ancient_furry_art tag. One of those posts - post #1362256 - dates back to 480 BC.
I would suggest only having year tags from 1901 to present day, since it is the 1970s when contemporary furries start to emerge.

Anything before the year 1901 would get the 19th century (1801-1900) , 18th century (1701-1800), ... , 1st century (1-100) tags; and anything before year 1 gets the before_common_era tag.

I'm completely onboard for this method of tagging years. There's probably some furry cave-art from 10,000+ years ago, and tagging every year from 1901 to that date just seems excessive. That's partially why I stopped at 1980 when I did the original year -> meta BUR. Most users don't need or want to be able to search for their favorite furry pics from 1438, and being able to search for art prior to the 1900s by century is good enough.

Also, 480 B.C.? Pft, this pic I uploaded dates back to 1323 B.C. post #2490539

notuncommon said:
Also, 480 B.C.? Pft, this pic I uploaded dates back to 1323 B.C. post #2490539

I see your 1323 B.C.E. pic and raise you a 40,000 B.C.E. sculpture. post #69343

I am also on board with TheGreatWolfgang's suggestion.

notuncommon said:
Also, 480 B.C.? Pft, this pic I uploaded dates back to 1323 B.C. post #2490539

Ok, that post raises a question here: It is a replica/sketch of an actual wall art dating back to circa 1323–1295 BC, however, the painting was done circa 1910/1911 AD.
So, which year do we tag? On one hand, it seems pretty odd for a piece from the 1920s; but then again, it is a replica and was not made in that actual year.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Ok, that post raises a question here: It is a replica/sketch of an actual wall art dating back to circa 1323–1295 BC, however, the painting was done circa 1910/1911 AD.

So, which year do we tag? On one hand, it seems pretty odd for a piece from the 1920s; but then again, it is a replica and was not made in that actual year.

In this case, using both tags seems adequate, unless someone uploads a scan of the original work, which is unlikely.

gattonero2001 said:
I see your 1323 B.C.E. pic and raise you a 40,000 B.C.E. sculpture. post #69343

I am also on board with TheGreatWolfgang's suggestion.

Hard to contest that one. Good job

thegreatwolfgang said:
Anything before the year 1901 would get the 19th century (1801-1900) , 18th century (1701-1800), ... , 1st century (1-100) tags; and anything before year 1 gets the before_common_era tag.

This wouldn't work. As I said in my previous thread on this, #th_century tags are already being used when the setting of a picture or some aspect of the picture was inspired by that particular century. In other words, tags such as 19th_century should be converted to lore tags at some point, not to meta. Personally, I'd rather see the exact years be used so that we know precisely when a picture was released to the public – "Amazing! This artist was making this sort of stuff back then, too?" – instead of a general "Oh, it was made sometime in this general and rather large chunk of time, I guess".

Approval error

NoMethodError exception raised

undefined method `category=' for nil:NilClass

    app/logical/alias_and_implication_importer.rb:258:in `block (2 levels) in execute'
    app/logical/alias_and_implication_importer.rb:233:in `map'
    app/logical/alias_and_implication_importer.rb:233:in `block in execute'
    app/logical/alias_and_implication_importer.rb:232:in `execute'
    app/logical/alias_and_implication_importer.rb:16:in `process!'
    app/models/bulk_update_request.rb:108:in `block (2 levels) in approve!'
    app/logical/current_user.rb:10:in `scoped'
    app/models/bulk_update_request.rb:107:in `block in approve!'
    app/models/bulk_update_request.rb:106:in `approve!'
    app/controllers/bulk_update_requests_controller.rb:37:in `approve'

millcore said:
Approval error

So, how'd I screw up this time?

clawstripe said: So, how'd I screw up this time?

I am guessing that you can't change the category of a tag that does not exist yet.
Like 1801, 1802, 1804, 1805, etc. The "future-proofing" section.

clawstripe said:
So, how'd I screw up this time?

It's nothing you can do about, it's something on the inside that needs to be debugged

millcore said:
It's nothing you can do about, it's something on the inside that needs to be debugged

Ah, I see. I apologize for that post, then. Sometimes, it gets frustrating when I feel like I'm continually Charlie Browning myself or worse. :(

The bulk update request #392 (forum #299611) has been approved by @Millcore.