Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The bulk update request #1274 is active.
create alias tinkerbell (0) -> tinker_bell (2)
create alias tinkerbelle (0) -> tinker_bell (2)
Reason: That's how it's written.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_Bell
EDIT: The bulk update request #1274 (forum #315964) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.
Updated by auto moderator
Tinkerbell will have to stop implying disney first before this goes through.
The bulk update request #1275 is active.
remove implication tinkerbell (0) -> disney (132540)
create implication tinker_bell (2) -> peter_pan (506)
Reason: This is necessary so that the above BUR can go through.
Addendum: Added the implication of Tinker Bell to Peter Pan as per bitWolfy's request via Watsit and faucet's recommendation.
EDIT: The bulk update request #1275 (forum #315972) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.
Updated by auto moderator
clawstripe said:
The bulk update request #1275 is active.remove implication tinkerbell (0) -> disney (132540)
create implication tinker_bell (2) -> peter_pan (506)Reason: This is necessary so that the above BUR can go through.
Thanks!
Could you add imply tinker_bell -> disney to that BUR as well?
bitwolfy said:
Thanks!
Could you add imply tinker_bell -> disney to that BUR as well?
Wouldn't it be better to imply tinker_bell -> peter_pan? Since she's a character from that story, which disney made an adaption of.
watsit said:
Wouldn't it be better to imply tinker_bell -> peter_pan? Since she's a character from that story, which disney made an adaption of.
This seems best, I don't think Tinker Bell should be implying Disney anyway - per topic #28359.
bitwolfy said:
Thanks!
Could you add imply tinker_bell -> disney to that BUR as well?
Can do. However, I took the recommendations to imply tinker_bell to peter_pan instead. If that doesn't work, it's easily changed.
faucet said:
This seems best, I don't think Tinker Bell should be implying Disney anyway - per topic #28359.
Naturally, I share that opinion. I believe it might be necessary to create separate tags for the original characters and the Disney adaptation's characters, while implicating the former to peter_pan and the latter to peter_pan_(1953).
I would like to write a BUR on the matter, but I'm not sure if and how to avoid double suffixes (for example, would nana_(disney) be specific enough or would nana_(peter_pan)_(disney) be better?). There is also the issue of finding all the characters currently featured in e621...
clawstripe said:
Can do. However, I took the recommendations to imply tinker_bell to peter_pan instead. If that doesn't work, it's easily changed.
Yeah, the peter_pan implication would work better.
gattonero2001 said:
I would like to write a BUR on the matter, but I'm not sure if and how to avoid double suffixes (for example, would nana_(disney) be specific enough or would nana_(peter_pan)_(disney) be better?). There is also the issue of finding all the characters currently featured in e621...
Do we really need separate character tags for that?
That's not something that's normally done, I think.
bitwolfy said:
Do we really need separate character tags for that?
That's not something that's normally done, I think.
That way we can imply the adaptation's characters to the adaptation's tag and the adaptation's tag to disney. Remember my other Disney BURs? They were pretty much the same thing.
I think Alice in Wonderland specifically would benefit greatly from this process, for example.
I'd personally like to advocate against Tinker_Bell_(Disney), as we'd then have to add an _(attribution) suffix to every single iteration of this public domain character. I'd rather none of the iterations of Tinker Bell get that treatment than all of them, and especially not just one iteration over any others.
gattonero2001 said:
That way we can imply the adaptation's characters to the adaptation's tag and the adaptation's tag to disney. Remember my other Disney BURs? They were pretty much the same thing.I think Alice in Wonderland specifically would benefit greatly from this process, for example.
Alice definitely would benefit from it, but are there any tinker bells that aren't Disney's? If it's not something to be worried about, let's not worry about it.
furrin_gok said:
(…)
There is the original Tinker Bell, there is the Disney adaptation Tinker Bell and there is the Régis Loisel adaptation Tinker Bell. There might even be more Tinker Bells that I am not currently aware of.
The bulk update request #1275 (forum #315972) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.
The bulk update request #1274 (forum #315964) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.
