https://e621.net/posts?tags=chihuang_%28%3F%29
This is an avatar, I believe. Yeah, verified and created entry: https://e621.net/wiki_pages/49391

alphamule said:
https://e621.net/posts?tags=chihuang_%28%3F%29
This is an avatar, I believe. Yeah, verified and created entry: https://e621.net/wiki_pages/49391

@gattonero2001 left a bunch of character_(?) tags on post #2757322, presumably as a temporary placeholder for the character owner's name.

As for chihuang_(?), it is just the romanisation of the character owner's name - 炽凰, so changing it to chihuang would be sufficient.

thegreatwolfgang said:
@gattonero2001 left a bunch of character_(?) tags on post #2757322, presumably as a temporary placeholder for the character owner's name.

As for chihuang_(?), it is just the romanisation of the character owner's name - 炽凰, so changing it to chihuang would be sufficient.

If it was a regular Chinese name, I'd be cautioning on how few family names there are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huang_(surname)
Chihuang has some odd and different meanings according to quick search using dictionaries, if not a family name. Probably has 0% to do with character. XD

I was just wondering if the ? should have been 'character' or 'dragon' or 'avatar' or something.

alphamule said:
If it was a regular Chinese name, I'd be cautioning on how few family names there are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huang_(surname)
Chihuang has some odd and different meanings according to quick search using dictionaries, if not a family name. Probably has 0% to do with character. XD

Unlikely, because:

• 黄 is not the same as 凰, as you have tried linking. The former would be a very common family name while the latter is unheard of.
• Chinese names don't follow the same order as English names. The family name would come first, before the given name.
• In this case, 凰 would not even be the last/family name, that would be 炽. And 炽 wouldn't make for a good family name either, it would be a rare name at the very least.
• Modern-day Chinese names tend to be 3 characters long, while 2-character names are mostly a thing of the past.
• 炽凰 is unlikely to be a real name of a person for the reasons above.
• 炽凰 directly translates to Blazing Phoenix.

I was just wondering if the ? should have been 'character' or 'dragon' or 'avatar' or something.

We don't need the _(?) anymore since the character owner shares the same name as the character (it being a fursona and all).
Since nobody else shares the same name as them, it would be protocol to just name the character tag as "chihuang".

thegreatwolfgang said:
Unlikely, because:

• 黄 is not the same as 凰, as you have tried linking. The former would be a very common family name while the latter is unheard of.
• Chinese names don't follow the same order as English names. The family name would come first, before the given name.
• In this case, 凰 would not even be the last/family name, that would be 炽. And 炽 wouldn't make for a good family name either, it would be a rare name at the very least.
• Modern-day Chinese names tend to be 3 characters long, while 2-character names are mostly a thing of the past.
• 炽凰 is unlikely to be a real name of a person for the reasons above.
• 炽凰 directly translates to Blazing Phoenix.

We don't need the _(?) anymore since the character owner shares the same name as the character (it being a fursona and all).
Since nobody else shares the same name as them, it would be protocol to just name the character tag as "chihuang".

Yeah, it's not the family 'spelling'. Homophones or whatever you call them are really common. Google thinks it's blealing phoenix or bleak phoenix, hahaha. Way to go for bad Romanization interpretation! There's no way it's not something like 'Blazing Phoenix', especially since the Persian colors also included PURPLE and the dragon has feathers!

If they want it changed from just 'chihuang', then we can easily do it with another BUR?

The bulk update request #4294 has been rejected.

mass update chihuang_(?) -> chihuang

Reason: Questionable suffix is redundant, as well.
https://e621.net/forum_topics/35515 I see now that the update command is able to make the change without adding more weight to the alias system, at cost of future tagging not getting redirected to 'updated' tag.

EDIT: The bulk update request #4294 (forum #359287) has been rejected by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #4294 (forum #359287) has been rejected by @slyroon.