The bulk update request #608 is pending approval.

Reason: There are several types of tags in use at the moment to describe symbol-shaped eyes/pupils. The tags in use tend to be all over the place, and there's no implications to a top-level tag which I think could be useful for searching and future tagging.

Originally I was going to have all the above tags follow the same suit as <3_eyes, however there are quite a few cases where the shape of the eyes and the pupils are distinct, such as posts using square_pupils or x_eyes/x_pupils.

Final note: I have been personally sifting through posts to try and fix them or add the proper tags, as well as creating or updating wiki pages. Hopefully this should cut down on the tagging work that needs to be done.

Related forum posts:

topic #20660 (x_x -> x_eyes pending alias)
topic #18372 (symbol-shaped_pupils -> unusual_pupils implication forum)
topic #27282 ('<3' Vs. 'Heart' forum)
topic #27074 (exotic_pupils -> unusual_pupils pending alias)

dedari said:
Originally I was going to have all the above tags follow the same suit as <3_eyes, however there are quite a few cases where the shape of the eyes and the pupils are distinct, such as posts using square_pupils or x_x/x_pupils.

And cases where there's shapes in the eyes, distinct from the eye or pupil shape itself, such as this with normal eye shapes, slit_pupils, and <3 symbols in the eyes.

dedari said:

• Spiral_eyes aliased to a disambiguation tag due to the fact that it includes posts where characters are hypnotized (eg. post #2530796 and post #2554468)

Those would actually be better classified as ringed_eyes, or technically ringed_pupils perhaps. A spiral is one continuous line that moves inward (or outward, depending on your perspective), whereas those are distinct concentric rings with alternating colors.

create alias cross_pupils -> +_pupils
create alias x_eyes -> x_x

I believe that those aliases should be flipped. Using emoticons instead of descriptive text is something that should be avoided.

create implication x_x -> symbol-shaped_eyes
create implication ^_^ -> symbol-shaped_eyes

The emoticon issue also applies here.

mass update +_eyes -> +_pupils

It would be better to sort this manually. *_eyes tags and *_pupils tags should always be kept separate (in fact, I am removing the alias of <3_pupils in another BUR). Again, I would be in favor of cross over + in this case.

create implication <3_eyes -> symbol-shaped_eyes

It is still being decided whether heart or <3 is the preferred format. See topic #27282. Until there is a clear consensus, A/I/BURs with <3_* tags should be avoided.

create alias spiral_eyes -> spiral_eyes_(disambiguation)

I agree with @Watsit. The ambiguity was caused by mistagging and there is no issue with the tag proper, therefore it should not be disambiguated.

create implication dizzy_eyes -> symbol-shaped_eyes

I believe that dizzy_eyes should be moved to the invalid category. It is not visually descriptive and most (but not all) posts under it should be moved to spiral_eyes instead.

Regarding unusual_eyes and unusual_pupils: they should be implicated by symbol-shaped_eyes and symbol-shaped_pupils respectively. All symbol-shaped eyes/pupils are unusual.

create alias cross_pupils -> +_pupils # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur

This error is being caused by the active aliases to cross_pupils.

create alias x_eyes -> x_x # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur

This error is being caused by the pending alias in topic #20660.

create alias spiral_eyes -> spiral_eyes_(disambiguation) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur

This error is being caused by the active aliases to spiral_eyes.

The rejected implication in topic #18372 was actually symbol-shaped_pupils -> exotic_pupils (see here) despite its appearance. It was rejected because it is standard to alias exotic_* tags to their unusual_* equivalents.

watsit said:
Those would actually be better classified as ringed_eyes, or technically ringed_pupils perhaps. A spiral is one continuous line that moves inward (or outward, depending on your perspective), whereas those are distinct concentric rings with alternating colors.

Sounds like hypno_eyes might need to be aliased to ringed_eyes then. I'll leave that to someone else who might wish to suggest an update to how hypnosis related tags work. I'd like to keep this BUR on the topic of symbols as much as possible.

gattonero2001 said:
I believe that those aliases should be flipped. Using emoticons instead of descriptive text is something that should be avoided.

gattonero2001 said:
The emoticon issue also applies here.

Good point on these. I've flipped the lines so that special characters are no longer the default. However, I'm not sure what ^_^ should be changed to. caret_eyes perhaps? That is the name for that character after all.

gattonero2001 said:
It would be better to sort this manually. *_eyes tags and *_pupils tags should always be kept separate (in fact, I am removing the alias of <3_pupils in another BUR). Again, I would be in favor of cross over + in this case.

You're right on this. There's not that many posts under the +_eyes at the moment and I suppose I was being a bit lazy. I'll go ahead and manually switch those over myself momentarily.

gattonero2001 said:
It is still being decided whether heart or <3 is the preferred format. See topic #27282. Until there is a clear consensus, A/I/BURs with <3_* tags should be avoided.

Agreed, removed that line. It can always be fixed later.

gattonero2001 said:
I agree with @Watsit. The ambiguity was caused by mistagging and there is no issue with the tag proper, therefore it should not be disambiguated.

I believe that dizzy_eyes should be moved to the invalid category. It is not visually descriptive and most (but not all) posts under it should be moved to spiral_eyes instead.

While you're right that dizzy_eyes is not a particularly great tag, the issue I've found is that a pretty significant number of posts using spiral_eyes are related to hypnosis. If you do a search with "spiral_eyes", you get 131 pages worth of images with 30 images a page. Now with the search of "spiral_eyes -hypnosis -hypno_eyes -ringed_eyes -mind_control", you now only have 45 pages worth of images. It's apparently obvious that people don't know the proper use of spiral_eyes and when ringed_eyes should be used instead. This is why I think there should be a disambiguation page so that taggers can hopefully see that they've made a mistake, or for those types of taggers who actively search disambiguation tags so that they can fix mistagged images.

gattonero2001 said:
Regarding unusual_eyes and unusual_pupils: they should be implicated by symbol-shaped_eyes and symbol-shaped_pupils respectively. All symbol-shaped eyes/pupils are unusual.

Agreed, went ahead and added those implications.

gattonero2001 said:
Errors

Added the relevant unalias/unimply lines and removed the x_eyes alias. Hopefully that should make things proper.
The spiral_eyes line I've left for the moment until I get further input on what I've addressed in the above paragraph.

dedari said:
Sounds like hypno_eyes might need to be aliased to ringed_eyes then. I'll leave that to someone else who might wish to suggest an update to how hypnosis related tags work. I'd like to keep this BUR on the topic of symbols as much as possible.

Hypnotized characters with unusual eyes do not always have ringed eyes or pupils (sometimes, they can be spiral eyes or pupils, for example), so it would be better to move hypno_eyes to the invalid category as a form of disambiguation. That way, people can search it and add the apropriate tag for each post on a case by case basis.

That can be achieved by adding the line category hypno_eyes -> invalid.

Good point on these. I've flipped the lines so that special characters are no longer the default. However, I'm not sure what ^_^ should be changed to. caret_eyes perhaps? That is the name for that character after all.

The "emoticon objection" is not a hard rule. Sometimes, this kind of tag is more adequate than its alternatives; in this case, most people do not know what a "caret" is and ^_^ already has aliases and implications associated to it. Its usage is already established and taggers are familiar with it, so there is no need to change it.

It might be a good thing to add the line create alias x_x -> x_eyes as well.

You're right on this. There's not that many posts under the +_eyes at the moment and I suppose I was being a bit lazy. I'll go ahead and manually switch those over myself momentarily.

There is a small error in the script:

create alias +_pupils -> cross_pupils
create implication +_pupils -> symbol-shaped_pupils

It is not possible to alias a tag to another one and implicate it at the same time. Perhaps you meant to write...

create alias +_pupils -> cross_pupils
create implication cross_pupils -> symbol-shaped_pupils

... instead?

Agreed, removed that line. It can always be fixed later.

Speaking of topic #27282, what is your opinion regarding the usage of <3 versus heart? Your vote would help community decision.

While you're right that dizzy_eyes is not a particularly great tag, the issue I've found is that a pretty significant number of posts using spiral_eyes are related to hypnosis. If you do a search with "spiral_eyes", you get 131 pages worth of images with 30 images a page. Now with the search of "spiral_eyes -hypnosis -hypno_eyes -ringed_eyes -mind_control", you now only have 45 pages worth of images. It's apparently obvious that people don't know the proper use of spiral_eyes and when ringed_eyes should be used instead. This is why I think there should be a disambiguation page so that taggers can hopefully see that they've made a mistake, or for those types of taggers who actively search disambiguation tags so that they can fix mistagged images.

Hypnotized characters with unusual eyes do not always have ringed eyes or pupils. Sometimes, they can be spiral eyes or pupils, for example. spiral_eyes naturally are frequently found in association with hypnosis, but that is not always the case. I do not understand how a significant number of posts using spiral_eyes being related to hypnosis is an issue?

While there does appear to be significant confusion between spiral_eyes and ringed_eyes, that is a problem that unfortunately cannot be solved by changing tag relationships. It has to be corrected manually to avoid false positives (that means no tag scripts; they cannot be fine-tuned enough for this specific purpose) and most posts under spiral_eyes are appropriately tagged.

I have previously stated my position that dizzy_eyes should be invalidated and I reiterate it. That can be achieved by adding the line category dizzy_eyes -> invalid. I consider it to be necessary for the same reasons that I have given for the invalidation of hypno_eyes.

Agreed, went ahead and added those implications.

It might be a good thing to add the line create implication unusual_pupils -> pupils as well.

Added the relevant unalias/unimply lines and removed the x_eyes alias. Hopefully that should make things proper.
The spiral_eyes line I've left for the moment until I get further input on what I've addressed in the above paragraph.

There are no alias/implication removal lines in your BUR at the moment. Perhaps the update failed? However, they are no longer necessary.

The removal of create alias cross_pupils -> +_pupils has eliminated the first error. Since the alias was flipped and cross_pupils is now the definitive tag, the active aliases to it should be left alone.

The removal of create alias x_eyes -> x_x has eliminated the second error. Since x_eyes is now the definitive tag, the alias x_x -> x_eyes should be added instead as I suggested before.

The third error persists due to the active aliases to spiral_eyes. Since I believe it to be a legitimate tag, I would be against the removal of aliases to it. Furthermore, even if the relevant unalias lines were added now, the BUR would still automatically fail to be approved because spiral_eyes cannot be aliased to other tags until the aliases to it are no longer active (which would require the approval of a BUR containing the alias removals).

I support the removal of the lines create alias spiral_eyes -> spiral_eyes_(disambiguation) and create implication dizzy_eyes -> symbol-shaped_eyes based on reasons stated in a previous paragraph.

create alias starry_eyes -> star_eyes

I support the removal of this line for reasons that I will hopefully remember to disclose in the near future. Sorry, I have to log off unexpectedly and there is no time to explain at the moment.

mass update star_eyes -> star_pupils

I support the removal of this line for the same reasons that I have given for the removal of mass update +_eyes -> +_pupils.

Regarding the money_pupils tag, I have related suggestions but as I said I have to go now. Sorry!

gattonero2001 said:
It might be a good thing to add the line create alias x_x -> x_eyes as well.

Thought I left that one in. It's back in there now.

gattonero2001 said:
There is a small error in the script:

create alias +_pupils -> cross_pupils
create implication +_pupils -> symbol-shaped_pupils

It is not possible to alias a tag to another one and implicate it at the same time. Perhaps you meant to write...

create alias +_pupils -> cross_pupils
create implication cross_pupils -> symbol-shaped_pupils

... instead?

Yes, I'm quite error prone at times. Also fixed

gattonero2001 said:
Speaking of topic #27282, what is your opinion regarding the usage of <3 versus heart? Your vote would help community decision.

I do think think using "heart" over "<3" would be a good change. Using word descriptors where possible rather than special characters seems better as a face-value tag definition, plus it cuts down on ambiguity and errors. For example, in opening post for this forum I've made my case on "$" versus "money", and for whatever reason the "$" sign can't even be put into the script because of an error.
I went ahead and added an upvote to that BUR topic to show my support.

gattonero2001 said:
Hypnotized characters...

You make a good point and I may have been under the assumption that the problem was far more widespread than it may actually be. I've went ahead and changed the relevant lines to match what you've suggested.

gattonero2001 said:
It might be a good thing to add the line create implication unusual_pupils -> pupils as well.

Added.

gattonero2001 said:

mass update star_eyes -> star_pupils

I support the removal of this line for the same reasons that I have given for the removal of mass update +_eyes -> +_pupils.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the function of the "update" term mean to change a particular tag in one post to another? As in, all posts with star_eyes will have that particular tag changed to star_pupils?
If so, then I'm gonna have to disagree with the removal. The reason being because at a quick glance through all the pages, the vast majority of posts using star_eyes should actually be star_pupils. That's somewhere around 600 posts that would need to be changed manually. I personally think it would be far easier to update the posts, then sift through for the minority of posts that deserve the star_eyes tag. I may actually just go through them in a moment to pick out the legitimate star_eyes posts.
Excluding whatever may have been under my blacklist, here's a list of posts that would need to be changed from star_pupils to star_eyes if the update went through:

Manually changing only ~49 posts rather than ~581 seems like a much better choice.

gattonero2001 said:

create alias starry_eyes -> star_eyes

I support the removal of this line for reasons that I will hopefully remember to disclose in the near future. Sorry, I have to log off unexpectedly and there is no time to explain at the moment.

I might actually know where you're probably going with this. I assume you mean the kinds of posts where there's stars in the eyes but they're not actually the pupils, such as post #2550383 (not to mention the rest of undramaticoo's posts)?

dedari said:
I went ahead and added an upvote to that BUR topic to show my support.

Thank you for voting. There are very few people who frequent the forum and only a fraction of them engage in BURs. It is important to have a diversity of viewpoints so that proposals can be examined from all perspectives.

However, your vote was not registered. Could you try again?

Leaving the reason of your vote as a comment in the original topic is important to discussion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the function of the "update" term mean to change a particular tag in one post to another? As in, all posts with star_eyes will have that particular tag changed to star_pupils?

That is exactly how the mass update script works.

If so, then I'm gonna have to disagree with the removal. The reason being because at a quick glance through all the pages, the vast majority of posts using star_eyes should actually be star_pupils. That's somewhere around 600 posts that would need to be changed manually. I personally think it would be far easier to update the posts, then sift through for the minority of posts that deserve the star_eyes tag.

Manually changing only ~49 posts rather than ~581 seems like a much better choice.

That does make sense. My main concern was that finding the legitimate posts afterwards would be difficult, but since you have already gathered them I no longer object to the presence of that line.

I might actually know where you're probably going with this. I assume you mean the kinds of posts where there's stars in the eyes but they're not actually the pupils, such as post #2550383 (not to mention the rest of undramaticoo's posts)?

Yes, that is precisely where I was headed to. I believe that starry_eyes should be invalidated (category starry_eyes -> invalid) because it could be used to mean star_eyes, star_pupils or stars_in_pupils (such as undramaticoo's posts).

create implication money_pupils -> symbol-shaped_pupils

I support the removal of this line because I believe that money_pupils is not descriptive enough. My suggestion for its substitution is below:

However, it is perfectly comprehensible if you decide to leave this to another BUR, as it partially escapes the "symbol" theme.

create implication triangle_pupils -> symbol-shaped_pupils
create implication square_pupils -> symbol-shaped_pupils

create implication square_eyes -> symbol-shaped_eyes

I support the removal of the above lines because I believe that there should be a distinction between geometric figures and symbols proper. My suggestion for its substitution is below:

However, you should be aware that trying to alias/implicate inexistent tags will cause the BUR to fail, so it would be better to check if the proposed tags have already been created before adding them.

gattonero2001 said:
Yes, that is precisely where I was headed to. I believe that starry_eyes should be invalidated (category starry_eyes -> invalid) because it could be used to mean star_eyes, star_pupils or stars_in_pupils (such as undramaticoo's posts).

If that's the case then I'd probably leave starry_eyes be. It could be useful to have a tags for posts in which there are symbols in the eyes which neither apply to the shape of the eye, nor the pupils. While I was browsing through star_eyes I did find many posts which do fit that criteria. Updating the wiki to describe when starry_eyes should be used and fixing the tag's use would be a better option in my opinion.
I've removed that tag from the BUR. It can always be invalidated separately if need be.

gattonero2001 said:

create implication money_pupils -> symbol-shaped_pupils

I support the removal of this line because I believe that money_pupils is not descriptive enough. My suggestion for its substitution is below:

I'm actually going to change money_pupils to currency_sign_pupils. I couldn't think of a better descriptive tag when I was making the BUR and "currency sign" fits perfectly.

gattonero2001 said:

create implication triangle_pupils -> symbol-shaped_pupils
create implication square_pupils -> symbol-shaped_pupils

create implication square_eyes -> symbol-shaped_eyes

I support the removal of the above lines because I believe that there should be a distinction between geometric figures and symbols proper. My suggestion for its substitution is below:

I'd like to hear thoughts from others before I put in this kind of change. While the logic is sound, I don't know if it would be a bit over-specific for this website's use. Also, regular geometric shapes still can be considered symbols. For example, shapes can be used as geographical markers on maps.

Edit/Note: I've went ahead and changed the implications regarding squares/triangles from -> symbol-shaped_* to -> unusual_*. It honestly does make sense to not consider shapes as "symbols". Though I'm still not sure a geometric_* tag is necessary. As always, I'm willing to change the BUR if it truly seems worth it.

gattonero2001 said:
However, you should be aware that trying to alias/implicate inexistent tags will cause the BUR to fail, so it would be better to check if the proposed tags have already been created before adding them.

Assuming this only applies to the tag to the right of the "->", I've went ahead and made sure each tag is populated with at least one post.