The bulk update request #1451 is active.

Reason: Aliasing a bunch of sun/moon/light beams variations to a single tag light_beam/sunbeam/moonbeam, aliasing plural -> singular. Implying sunbeam and moonbeam to light_beam, light_beam to light and implying moonbeam to moonlight.

God rays / crepuscular rays seems to be used synonymously with the sunbeam tag and I don't see the utility of having these tags, even though not every sunbeam seems to be a crespusuclar ray according Wikipedia, but the difference is pretty mild I'd say.

There's also antisolar ray AND antisolar crepuscular rays that also seems useless for me and as it doesn't seem that people will use this, I didn't alias them to the BUR, so should I leave it from the BUR or also alias it to sunbeam, what you think?

alias light_rays -> light_beam
alias sunrays -> sunbeam
alias sun_rays -> sunbeam
alias godrays -> sunbeam
alias god_rays -> sunbeam

imply light_beam -> light
alias solar_beam -> sunbeam
alias solar_beams -> sunbeam
alias solar_ray -> sunbeam
alias solar_rays -> sunbeam
alias lunar_beam -> moonbeam
alias lunar_beams -> moonbeam
alias lunar_ray -> moonbeam
alias lunar_rays -> moonbeam

Edit1: Removed alias sunbeams -> sunbeam # duplicate of alias #10758
Edit2: Re-added imply light_beam -> light.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1451 (forum #318551) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

Not sure about these "blocking transitive relationships". I rechecked the tags looking for something that could be blocking them and I think the only thing blocking them are the alias requests I listed at "Reject these". Hm~

About imply light_beam -> light that I removed with the reason being:

• Light is for light sources and there will be times that you'll be able to see the beam of light, but not the light source that is emitting it.

But seeing now it's seems dumb as sunbeam and moonbeam will implicate sunlight and moonlight which will implicate light. What y'all think? Should I put it back on the BUR?

sieghelm_lockayer said:
About imply light_beam -> light that I removed with the reason being:

• Light is for light sources and there will be times that you'll be able to see the beam of light, but not the light source that is emitting it.

But seeing now it's seems dumb as sunbeam and moonbeam will implicate sunlight and moonlight which will implicate light. What y'all think? Should I put it back on the BUR?

I’d put it back, since not all beams of light may be from the sun or moon. They may also be caused by artificial light sources, and so it should still imply light in case someone uses the light_beam tag without tagging it as a sun beam or a moon beam.

I would’ve liked for crepuscular_ray to be an implication rather than an alias, as it’s a rather specific type of sun ray; that is, one that appears during a crepuscule (ie. twilight), but looking through the tags, it appears that nobody has actually used the tag in that manner. They’re all just regular sunbeams. So, yeah, might as well alias it.

scaliespe said:
I’d put it back, since not all beams of light may be from the sun or moon. They may also be caused by artificial light sources, and so it should still imply light in case someone uses the light_beam tag without tagging it as a sun beam or a moon beam.

Re-added.

I would’ve liked for crepuscular_ray to be an implication rather than an alias, as it’s a rather specific type of sun ray; that is, one that appears during a crepuscule (ie. twilight), but looking through the tags, it appears that nobody has actually used the tag in that manner. They’re all just regular sunbeams. So, yeah, might as well alias it.

I was also thinking in aliasing god rays to crepuscular rays and then imply sunbeam, but nobody was using it right, so I opted for aliasing everything to sunbeam instead. I think people could still use sunbeam ~sunset ~sunrise to see crepuscular rays, so it shouldn't be that horrible I'd say.

Weather and meteorological phenomena are my jam.
If y'all want we can break the crepuscular alias and clean the tags ourselves to set the example

rainbow_dash said:
Weather and meteorological phenomena are my jam.
If y'all want we can break the crepuscular alias and clean the tags ourselves to set the example

I’ll gladly help with tagging if we’re going to do that.

rainbow_dash said:
Weather and meteorological phenomena are my jam.
If y'all want we can break the crepuscular alias and clean the tags ourselves to set the example

Seems ok for me. Could you give a draft about crepuscular rays and some examples of posts that would be tagged with it?

The bulk update request #1475 is pending approval.

create alias light_rays (80) -> light_beam (3181)
create alias sunrays (86) -> sunbeam (2366)
create alias sun_rays (126) -> sunbeam (2366)
change category sunbeam (2366) -> general

Reason: Aliases that was getting blocked / giving error messages.

sieghelm_lockayer said:
The bulk update request #1475 is pending approval.

create alias light_rays (80) -> light_beam (3181)
create alias sunrays (86) -> sunbeam (2366)
create alias sun_rays (126) -> sunbeam (2366)
change category sunbeam (2366) -> general

Reason: Aliases that was getting blocked / giving error messages.

It seems that sunbeam and moonbeam somehow became character tags. I was able to change moonbeam back to general (and even identify the character named moonbeam and give it its own character tag) because there weren't very many posts under that tag, but sunbeam will have to be changed in a BUR because it's too big.

Could you add this to the BUR? category sunbeam -> general

sieghelm_lockayer said:
Seems ok for me. Could you give a draft about crepuscular rays and some examples of posts that would be tagged with it?

I looked through the posts, and these were actually the only two I could find that seemed to be genuine crepuscular rays... and I'm not totally sure about the second one. The first one is a pretty good example of what it should look like, though.
*disclaimer: my search was somewhat cursory, so I might've missed something

post #1779941 post #148006

Edit: I found a few more by searching ~sunrise ~sunset. These were missing the sunbeam tag. So, there may be more out there, but it doesn't look like they're going to be found under the sunbeam tag...
post #2976372 post #2920266 post #2278983
This is all I could find in about the first 30 pages, though. Genuine crepuscular rays seem to be very few and far between.

Just to clarify: ideally, crepuscular rays should only be tagged when the sun is below the horizon. That's what makes them crepuscular (during a crepuscle, ie. twilight, when the sun is just below the horizon).

scaliespe said:
It seems that sunbeam and moonbeam somehow became character tags. I was able to change moonbeam back to general (and even identify the character named moonbeam and give it its own character tag) because there weren't very many posts under that tag, but sunbeam will have to be changed in a BUR because it's too big.

Could you add this to the BUR? category sunbeam -> general

Added category sunbeam -> general.

I was certain that sunbeam was in the general category, so I checked the history of category changes of that tag and found that sunbeam was changed to the character category by RD? Don't know why, maybe some kind of BUR shenanigans?

scaliespe said:
I looked through the posts, and these were actually the only two I could find that seemed to be genuine crepuscular rays... and I'm not totally sure about the second one. The first one is a pretty good example of what it should look like, though.
*disclaimer: my search was somewhat cursory, so I might've missed something

post #1779941 post #148006

Edit: I found a few more by searching ~sunrise ~sunset. These were missing the sunbeam tag. So, there may be more out there, but it doesn't look like they're going to be found under the sunbeam tag...
post #2976372 post #2920266 post #2278983
This is all I could find in about the first 30 pages, though. Genuine crepuscular rays seem to be very few and far between.

Just to clarify: ideally, crepuscular rays should only be tagged when the sun is below the horizon. That's what makes them crepuscular (during a crepuscle, ie. twilight, when the sun is just below the horizon).

Ok, seems feasible to tag it consistently. But with the nature of art and creativity, couldn't crepuscular rays also happen at moonrise and moonset or even with artificial lights?

sieghelm_lockayer said:
Ok, seems feasible to tag it consistently. But with the nature of art and creativity, couldn't crepuscular rays also happen at moonrise and moonset or even with artificial lights?

Eh… I’m gonna say no, definitely not. In real life, the moon isn’t nearly bright enough (this effect is even fairly uncommon with the sun, requiring certain atmospheric conditions), and an artificial light…? Unless it’s a planet-sized lightbulb, uh, no.

scaliespe said:
Eh… I’m gonna say no, definitely not. In real life, the moon isn’t nearly bright enough (this effect is even fairly uncommon with the sun, requiring certain atmospheric conditions), and an artificial light…? Unless it’s a planet-sized lightbulb, uh, no.

Yep. That's why I said "with the nature of art and creativity" as these could theoretically happen in art, but if these instance won't ​be counted as crepuscular rays that's fine for me. (⠀👍⠀.⠀⠀_⠀.⠀)

I just now realized currently sunlight has the same definition of sunbeam. Maybe we should update the Wiki to change its usage for cases where sunlight doesn't make a beam? Example:

post #2974235 post #2970636 post #2955195

But wouldn't it be better to simply alias sunlight to day? I don't see how to tag daytime without the presence of sunlight, unless there's a clock somewhere in the image or by using TWYK.

Edit: Nvm, I think day implicating sunlight would be more sensible.