The bulk update request #1998 is active.

create alias <3_necklace (1) -> heart_necklace (248)
create alias <3_window (0) -> heart_window (1)
create alias <3_box (0) -> heart_box (212)
create alias hearts_box (0) -> heart_box (212)
create alias <3_shaped_box (0) -> heart_box (212)
create alias <3-shaped_box (0) -> heart_box (212)
create alias heart_shaped_box (1) -> heart_box (212)
create alias heart-shaped_box (2) -> heart_box (212)
create alias hearts_shaped_box (0) -> heart_box (212)
create alias hearts-shaped_box (0) -> heart_box (212)
create alias heart-shaped_princess_plug (1) -> heart_jewel_buttplug (35)
remove implication heart_shaped_bed (1) -> bed (171044)
create implication heart_bed (42) -> bed (171044)
create implication heart_background (978) -> simple_background (1149722)
create implication heart_(marking) (6288) -> markings (351250)

Reason: Holdout tags and missing implications from the <3_* -> heart_* move, see topic #27282 & forum #322992.
Discussion for better tag naming is encouraged.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1998 (forum #326949) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

I don't think any heart-shaped box should be assumed to contain chocolates. Both tags can coexist.

gattonero2001 said:
I don't think any heart-shaped box should be assumed to contain chocolates. Both tags can coexist.

I raised that issue before, essentially most (if not all) heart-shaped boxes are used to describe boxes of chocolate. We could mass update it to box_of_chocolates and retain a separate tag for heart-shaped boxes, but it wouldn't stop people from mistaking it as chocolates.

If your argument is that chocolate needs to be visible in the heart-shaped box to be considered box_of_chocolates, then the latter tag is severely misused with many posts featuring the physical box instead of what is inside.
However, the same argument could be made with chocolate_bars, since you can't see the chocolate until it has been unwrapped.
Therefore, would you consider a chocolate wrapped in its packaging to be chocolate? Or just a random candy wrapper?

thegreatwolfgang said:
If your argument is that chocolate needs to be visible in the heart-shaped box to be considered box_of_chocolates (...)

No, I believe that it would not make sense to tag an open heart-shaped box that visibly contains anything that isn't chocolate as a "box of chocolates". A box can be heart-shaped and contain chocolates at the same time, but not always. An alias would be incorrect.

gattonero2001 said:
No, I believe that it would not make sense to tag an open heart-shaped box that visibly contains anything that isn't chocolate as a "box of chocolates". A box can be heart-shaped and contain chocolates at the same time, but not always. An alias would be incorrect.

Then, it returns back to my main issue with keeping separate tags.
We can retain box_of_chocolates and heart_box as separate tags, but how do we stop mistags or mistaking one for the other?

Alternatively, we could unimply box_of_chocolates from chocolate (like how milk_carton does not imply milk).

thegreatwolfgang said:
We can retain box_of_chocolates and heart_box as separate tags, but how do we stop mistags or mistaking one for the other?

Several tags require a bit of cleanup once in a while, those two aren't unique. This is the kind of issue that should be solved with a tag project rather than through altering tag relationships.

Alternatively, we could unimply box_of_chocolates from chocolate (like how milk_carton does not imply milk).

Perhaps, but that's outside the scope of a <3 -> heart BUR. The chocolate discussion deserves its own topic.

gattonero2001 said:
Several tags require a bit of cleanup once in a while, those two aren't unique. This is the kind of issue that should be solved with a tag project rather than through altering tag relationships.

Perhaps, but that's outside the scope of a <3 -> heart BUR. The chocolate discussion deserves its own topic.

I have removed all instances of the box_of_chocolates alias for the time being then for another topic of its own.
All the variants of the heart-shaped boxes will now be aliased to heart_box instead to keep everything in one place.

thegreatwolfgang said:
The bulk update request #1998 is active.

create alias <3_necklace (1) -> heart_necklace (248)
create alias <3_window (0) -> heart_window (1)
create alias <3_box (0) -> heart_box (212)
create alias hearts_box (0) -> heart_box (212)
create alias <3_shaped_box (0) -> heart_box (212)
create alias <3-shaped_box (0) -> heart_box (212)
create alias heart_shaped_box (1) -> heart_box (212)
create alias heart-shaped_box (2) -> heart_box (212)
create alias hearts_shaped_box (0) -> heart_box (212)
create alias hearts-shaped_box (0) -> heart_box (212)
create alias heart-shaped_princess_plug (1) -> heart_jewel_buttplug (35)
remove implication heart_shaped_bed (1) -> bed (171044)
create implication heart_bed (42) -> bed (171044)
create implication heart_background (978) -> simple_background (1149722)
create implication heart_(marking) (6288) -> markings (351250)

Reason: Holdout tags and missing implications from the <3_* -> heart_* move, see topic #27282 & forum #322992.
Discussion for better tag naming is encouraged.

Part 2 BUR (WIP)

alias heart_shaped_bed -> heart_bed

Tags Excluded from this BUR / Pending Discussion

• <3/heart_symbol/heart_(disambiguation) [see topic #34418]
• <3_eyes (overlaps with <3_pupils) [see topic #34807]
• <3_censor
• <3_tail/heart_tail
• <3_tongue (overlaps with <3_mouth/heart_mouth/heart-shaped_mouth)
• <3_eyebrows
• <3_penis (overlaps with heart_shaped_flare)

I recommend removing the first alias, it has already been implemented.

snpthecat said:
I recommend removing the first alias, it has already been implemented.

I thought the BUR system was robust enough to ignore already existing aliases. Regardless, I have removed it.

The bulk update request #1998 (forum #326949) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7210 is active.

create alias heart_shaped_bed (1) -> heart_bed (42)

Reason: Followup
When should a heart bed be tagged heart symbol?

EDIT: The bulk update request #7210 (forum #397025) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

snpthecat said:
When should a heart bed be tagged heart symbol?

I don't know if heart-shaped objects should even imply heart_symbol. I wouldn't be opposed if it did.
However, in this case, I can see the argument being made that any heart-shaped object that was broken in half would qualify as broken_heart rather than heart_symbol.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I don't know if heart-shaped objects should even imply heart_symbol. I wouldn't be opposed if it did.
However, in this case, I can see the argument being made that any heart-shaped object that was broken in half would qualify as broken_heart rather than heart_symbol.

IMO heart_symbol should be for the glyph itself, not anything that happens to have a heart shape.

heart_shape / heart_shaped should be for non-glyph uses.

The bulk update request #7210 (forum #397025) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.