The bulk update request #4144 is active.

create implication orange_sky (731) -> sky (120265)
create implication yellow_sky (289) -> sky (120265)
create implication green_sky (131) -> sky (120265)
create implication purple_sky (444) -> sky (120265)
create implication pink_sky (284) -> sky (120265)
create implication teal_sky (6) -> sky (120265)
create implication brown_sky (18) -> sky (120265)
create implication white_sky (91) -> sky (120265)
create implication black_sky (128) -> sky (120265)
create implication grey_sky (243) -> sky (120265)

Reason: Mostly another color implications BUR. Red_sky and blue_sky already imply sky.
IMO clear_sky is redundant since it's just sky -cloud. Clear_sky will now imply sky because there could be ash in the sky I guess?
Cloudy_sky isn't quite the same as overcast, I think. Overcast implies the sky is basically a blanket of clouds, right? And cloudy sky might just be a few clouds. So I think it should alias to cloud, not overcast. Cloud is for any amount of clouds including barely any clouds, cloudy_sky would be for a moderate amount of clouds, and overcast would be for a sky blanketed in clouds. Overcast needs to imply cloud as well

Maybe black_sky should imply night too? What do you guys think? I don't think it should be aliased to night though, night skies can also be dark blue, for example.

EDIT: The bulk update request #4144 (forum #357516) has been approved by @slyroon.

Cloudy sky should not be aliased to cloud.

Cloudy sky should be when there are several clouds in the sky, OR when 3/8 or more of the sky is covered by clouds.

A cloud and cloudy sky are two different things and should not be aliased together.

kyiiel said:
Cloudy sky should not be aliased to cloud.

Cloudy sky should be when there are several clouds in the sky, OR when 3/8 or more of the sky is covered by clouds.

A cloud and cloudy sky are two different things and should not be aliased together.

Isn't several clouds in the sky just sky cloud?

I think I might understand now, Kyiiel - do you mean cloud + sky for any amount of clouds (including just like, one tiny streak in a big empty sky), cloudy_sky for a lot of clouds but still some empty patches, and overcast for when the sky is all clouds?

I could get behind that. Will change the bur if others agree

cloudpie said:
I think I might understand now, Kyiiel - do you mean cloud + sky for any amount of clouds (including just like, one tiny streak in a big empty sky), cloudy_sky for a lot of clouds but still some empty patches, and overcast for when the sky is all clouds?

I could get behind that. Will change the bur if others agree

The way I see it, cloud is about presence of cloud(s), regardless of their size and amount. While cloudy/cloudy_sky is about cloud coverage.

Edited to have cloudy_sky imply cloud and sky

Maybe it should be like a hyper > huge > big situation where overcast implies cloudy_sky which implies cloud? y/n?

cloudpie said:
The bulk update request #4144 is active.

create implication orange_sky (731) -> sky (120265)
create implication yellow_sky (289) -> sky (120265)
create implication green_sky (131) -> sky (120265)
create implication purple_sky (444) -> sky (120265)
create implication pink_sky (284) -> sky (120265)
create implication teal_sky (6) -> sky (120265)
create implication brown_sky (18) -> sky (120265)
create implication white_sky (91) -> sky (120265)
create implication black_sky (128) -> sky (120265)
create implication grey_sky (243) -> sky (120265)

Reason: Mostly another color implications BUR. Red_sky and blue_sky already imply sky.
IMO clear_sky is redundant since it's just sky -cloud.
Cloudy_sky isn't quite the same as overcast, I think. Overcast implies the sky is basically a blanket of clouds, right? And cloudy sky might just be a few clouds. So I think it should alias to cloud, not overcast. Cloud is for any amount of clouds including barely any clouds, cloudy_sky would be for a moderate amount of clouds, and overcast would be for a sky blanketed in clouds. Overcast needs to imply cloud as well

Maybe black_sky should imply night too? What do you guys think? I don't think it should be aliased to night though, night skies can also be dark blue, for example.

Clear sky should be implicated. The point of clear sky is that it is a sky with nothing covering it. Weather should be treated differently from the sky itself.

wolfmanfur said:
Clear sky should be implicated. The point of clear sky is that it is a sky with nothing covering it. Weather should be treated differently from the sky itself.

What else besides clouds could cover a sky?
All I can think of is clouds, and then (if properly tagged) wouldn't clear_sky return the same results as sky -cloud? Because a clear sky is a sky with nothing (no clouds) covering it.

cloudpie said:
What else besides clouds could cover a sky?
All I can think of is clouds, and then (if properly tagged) wouldn't clear_sky return the same results as sky -cloud? Because a clear sky is a sky with nothing (no clouds) covering it.

A lot of projectiles/aircraft maybe?
Or for a more natural example, volcanic ash?

cloudpie said:
What else besides clouds could cover a sky?
All I can think of is clouds, and then (if properly tagged) wouldn't clear_sky return the same results as sky -cloud? Because a clear sky is a sky with nothing (no clouds) covering it.

It might also just be the case that people don’t tag cloud, so you have more than one way to find the same thing. Using the minus operator to find what you’re looking for generally isn’t that reliable since a lot of art is undertagged. So sky -cloud may end up with a lot of false results because cloud wasn’t tagged, while clear_sky should return exclusively correct results.

Also a foggy, smoggy, or smoky sky isn’t cloudy, but isn’t clear either.

cloudpie said:
The bulk update request #4144 is active.

create implication orange_sky (731) -> sky (120265)
create implication yellow_sky (289) -> sky (120265)
create implication green_sky (131) -> sky (120265)
create implication purple_sky (444) -> sky (120265)
create implication pink_sky (284) -> sky (120265)
create implication teal_sky (6) -> sky (120265)
create implication brown_sky (18) -> sky (120265)
create implication white_sky (91) -> sky (120265)
create implication black_sky (128) -> sky (120265)
create implication grey_sky (243) -> sky (120265)

Reason: Mostly another color implications BUR. Red_sky and blue_sky already imply sky.
IMO clear_sky is redundant since it's just sky -cloud.
Cloudy_sky isn't quite the same as overcast, I think. Overcast implies the sky is basically a blanket of clouds, right? And cloudy sky might just be a few clouds. So I think it should alias to cloud, not overcast. Cloud is for any amount of clouds including barely any clouds, cloudy_sky would be for a moderate amount of clouds, and overcast would be for a sky blanketed in clouds. Overcast needs to imply cloud as well

Maybe black_sky should imply night too? What do you guys think? I don't think it should be aliased to night though, night skies can also be dark blue, for example.

Would anybody object to getting rid of two_tone_sky and multicolored_sky? These sound pointless. I’d rather use gradient_sky and I don’t know what a non-gradient multicolored sky would look like except something completely unnatural. Like the sky replaced with a checkerboard. But at some point it just becomes too niche to bother tagging.

scaliespe said:
Also a foggy, smoggy, or smoky sky isn’t cloudy, but isn’t clear either.

Fair enough - edited that

scaliespe said:
Would anybody object to getting rid of two_tone_sky and multicolored_sky? These sound pointless. I’d rather use gradient_sky and I don’t know what a non-gradient multicolored sky would look like except something completely unnatural. Like the sky replaced with a checkerboard. But at some point it just becomes too niche to bother tagging.

Makes sense to me. Should those be aliased to sky or to gradient_sky?

The bulk update request #6395 is active.

create implication gradient_sky (172) -> sky (120265)
create implication multicolored_sky (104) -> sky (120265)
create implication two_tone_sky (22) -> multicolored_sky (104)
create implication clear_sky (304) -> sky (120265)
create implication cloudy_sky (566) -> cloud (74482)
create implication cloudy_sky (566) -> sky (120265)
create implication overcast (586) -> cloud (74482)

Reason: separating out the ones that had controversy from the basic color ones

EDIT: The bulk update request #6395 (forum #389258) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #4144 (forum #357516) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6395 (forum #389258) has been approved by @slyroon.