Topic: Tag alias: pam_thunder_(lewd_dorky) -> pam_(dork_boi)

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

MatrixMash

Privileged

The bulk update request #4039 has been rejected.

mass update pam_(dork_boi) -> pam_thunder_(lewd_dorky)

Reason: In keeping with the policy mentioned in topic #37072, this is an update rather than an alias.

I have reviewed the posts and affirm that they are all the same character. I chose the direction because pam_thunder_(lewd_dorky) includes the character's full name and artist's current Twitter handle.

EDIT: The bulk update request #4039 (forum #356392) has been rejected by @furrypickle.

Updated by auto moderator

furrypickle

Admin

Thank you MatrixMash for that added verifying, and also for the additional information.

In this case, I opted to switch the direction of the alias and approve it. I did this for a few reasons.

1, we seem to like full names for characters when they can be found, so "pam thunder" is better than just "pam". Also "dork_boi" is the artist's old name and has already been aliased to -> "lewd_dorky" so doing it the opposite way for their character name just didn't make as much sense to me. So I went with MatrixMash's suggestion to have it go the other way. So that is why I flipped the alias.

2, The other half of this, is that I went with the alias instead of the mass update. This was partly because I checked the history for the tag's usage and someone had gone out of their way to manually move things over to the pam_(dork_boi) version and it was getting used, so a mass update might be temporary or have a learning curve before usage shifted over. But there's no need to leave it that complicated when an alias would make sure it all goes to the same place on the first try. And there was no other usage or character confusion with either tag, so that shouldn't cause any problem with aliasing it either. So an alias seemed like the better option for this case.

3, But there's another factor. So the example that was mentioned in topic #37072 was a little bit different. It was talking about a [this distinctive name] -> [this distinctive name]_(plus an added suffix). The name was already pretty distinctive, and once someone gets that far, then the longer suffixed version should pop up as a suggestion, making it easy to tell where they should go for it. So once it is moved over with the Mass Update, then it will probably stay that way. An alias probably wouldn't hurt, but it also probably wouldn't be needed either. So just using a Mass Update was sufficient.

But in this case, the main name was "pam"... and there's a lot more things (and people) that could pop up as suggestions. So there wouldn't be any direct link to where it all went and what the better tag would be after typing in just that part. So that reasoning wouldn't help lead people to the better tag for it, in this case. I could do a Mass Update but then it would be easy for someone to know the old tag and not know where it all went. So in this case, an alias had the clear advantage.

One more thing I want to clarify about the reasoning in topic #37072 , was it also partly referenced a different type of situation where we have to use a suffix after a name to divide a common name between multiple distinct characters... in which case aliasing the common name to any single one of them would lead to mistags. So as an example, that would be if someone had ever said "pam should alias to -> pam_(dork_boi)" and then we'd have to say 'no, because there's other pams as well, so that would make a mess of mistags with other characters named pam'. So that's another type of situation that sometimes comes up with suffixes on names, and why we have to be careful about where they are aliased to. Now obviously not the case of what was happening here, but that's just to further explain what was being referenced in topic #37072 because it was mentioned in brief over there. But hopefully all of this helps clarify more of how and why.

  • 1