The bulk update request #5883 is pending approval.

mass update robin_hood_(disney) -> disney's_robin_hood
mass update alan_a_dale -> allan-a-dale_(disney)
mass update robin_hood -> robin_hood_(disney)
mass update little_john -> little_john_(disney)
mass update sir_hiss -> sir_hiss_(disney)
mass update prince_john -> prince_john_(disney)
mass update friar_tuck -> friar_tuck_(disney)
mass update sheriff_of_nottingham -> sheriff_of_nottingham_(disney)
mass update mother_rabbit -> mother_rabbit_(disney)
mass update skippy -> skippy_(disney)
mass update maid_marian -> maid_marian_(disney)
mass update captain_crocodile -> captain_crocodile_(disney)
mass update nutsy_(robin_hood) -> nutsy_(disney)
mass update trigger_(robin_hood) -> trigger_(disney)
mass update rhino_guard -> rhino_guard_(disney)

Reason: This is a BUR to disambiguate some of the character's from Disney's Robin Hood and implicate them to the movie itself.

The bulk update request #5884 is pending approval.

create implication allan-a-dale_(disney) (0) -> robin_hood_(disney) (4259)
create implication little_john_(disney) (0) -> robin_hood_(disney) (4259)
create implication sir_hiss_(disney) (0) -> robin_hood_(disney) (4259)
create implication prince_john_(disney) (0) -> robin_hood_(disney) (4259)
create implication friar_tuck_(disney) (0) -> robin_hood_(disney) (4259)
create implication sheriff_of_nottingham_(disney) (0) -> robin_hood_(disney) (4259)
create implication mother_rabbit (28) -> robin_hood_(disney) (4259)
create implication skippy_(disney) (0) -> robin_hood_(disney) (4259)
create implication maid_marian_(disney) (0) -> robin_hood_(disney) (4259)
create implication captain_crocodile (46) -> robin_hood_(disney) (4259)
create implication nutsy_(robin_hood) (7) -> nutsy_(disney) (0)
create implication trigger_(disney) (0) -> robin_hood_(disney) (4259)
create implication rhino_guard (60) -> robin_hood_(disney) (4259)

Reason: Not sure why I need two of these.

What will the disney robin hood character's tag be? Can't be robin_hood_(disney) because that's the copyright tag. Also just fyi there are like 3 images in the robin_hood tag currently that are not the disney version, those will need to be moved back to the generic robin_hood tag after.

foolysh said:
imply triggerrobin_hood_(disney) -> robin_hood_(disney)

Typo here btw

I think mother rabbit may need a suffix as well, might be a generic enough name

cloudpie said:
Typo here btw

I think mother rabbit may need a suffix as well, might be a generic enough name

Thanks

foolysh said:
mass update alan_a_dale -> allan-a-dale_(disney)

"Alan-a-Dale" seems to be the more common spelling, as well as the one we currently use.

foolysh said:
mass update robin_hood -> robin_hood_(disney)

The tag robin_hood_(disney) is currently in use as the copyright tag for the film. Either this needs to be moved elsewhere or the character needs a different tag. robin_hood_(disney) is currently implied by two tags, maid_marian and lady_kluck.

foolysh said:
mass update mother_rabbit -> robin_hood_(disney)

Deleting rather than updating a tag?

foolysh said:
mass update maid_marian -> maid_marian_(disney)

As mentioned above, you need to remove the implication first.

foolysh said:
mass update nutsy_(robin_hood) -> nutsy_(disney)

This is the only tag which already has a suffix where you are changing it to a less specific suffix. Why?

foolysh said:
mass update trigger_(robin_hood) -> trigger_(robin_hood)

Updating a tag to itself?

foolysh said:
create implication allan-a-dale_(disney) (0) -> robin_hood_(disney) (3940)

This line and the rest of the second BUR implies that you intend to keep robin_hood_(disney) as a copyright tag, in which case the character tag needs to be called something else.

foolysh said:
create implication little_john_(disney) (0) -> robin_hood_(dinsey) (0)

"dinsey"

foolysh said:
create implication mother_rabbit (27) -> robin_hood_(disney) (3940)

This is the same tag you accidentally deleted earlier. Not giving it a suffix?

foolysh said:
create implication captain_crocodile (45) -> robin_hood_(disney) (3940)

captain_crocodile was updated to captain_crocodile_(disney) in the previous BUR.

foolysh said:
create implication nutsy_(robin_hood) (6) -> nutsy_(disney) (0)

I assume you meant to imply this to robin_hood_(disney) instead. See previous comment about the nutsy_(robin_hood) tag.

foolysh said:
create implication trigger_(dinsey) (0) -> robin_hood_(dinsey) (0)

"dinsey" typo on both sides of this line, and also trigger_(robin_hood) already has a suffix (which you haven't proposed to change).

foolysh said:
create implication rhino_guard (48) -> robin_hood_(dinsey) (0)

"dinsey" again.

wat8548 said:
"Alan-a-Dale" seems to be the more common spelling, as well as the one we currently use.
The tag robin_hood_(disney) is currently in use as the copyright tag for the film. Either this needs to be moved elsewhere or the character needs a different tag. robin_hood_(disney) is currently implied by two tags, maid_marian and lady_kluck.
Deleting rather than updating a tag?
As mentioned above, you need to remove the implication first.
This is the only tag which already has a suffix where you are changing it to a less specific suffix. Why?
Updating a tag to itself?
This line and the rest of the second BUR implies that you intend to keep robin_hood_(disney) as a copyright tag, in which case the character tag needs to be called something else.
"dinsey"
This is the same tag you accidentally deleted earlier. Not giving it a suffix?
captain_crocodile was updated to captain_crocodile_(disney) in the previous BUR.
I assume you meant to imply this to robin_hood_(disney) instead. See previous comment about the nutsy_(robin_hood) tag.
"dinsey" typo on both sides of this line, and also trigger_(robin_hood) already has a suffix (which you haven't proposed to change).
"dinsey" again.

Okay hold on.

foolysh said:
mass update robin_hood_(disney) -> disney's_robin_hood
mass update robin_hood -> robin_hood_(disney)

You can't do both of these in the same BUR because execution order is not guaranteed. Most likely you'll end up combining the two tags into one.

You also need to remove the two existing implications from robin_hood_(disney) before you repurpose it as a character tag, and request a category change (can be done at any stage) because it has more than 100 posts.

I'm not sure I like "disney's_robin_hood" as a tag name. There's no clear indicator of the difference between it and "robin_hood_(disney)", something we really need if we are to overcome 16 years of precedent. Perhaps we could take a leaf out of Wikipedia's book and call it "robin_hood_(1973_film)", which is already the first line of our current robin_hood_(disney) wiki page, and at least makes it explicit that it doesn't refer to the character.

foolysh said:
create implication mother_rabbit (27) -> robin_hood_(disney) (3947)
create implication captain_crocodile (45) -> robin_hood_(disney) (3947)
create implication nutsy_(robin_hood) (6) -> nutsy_(disney) (0)
create implication rhino_guard (48) -> robin_hood_(disney) (3947)

These lines are all still using the old tag names, and the implication target for Nutsy is still wrong. Also, of course, every occurrence of robin_hood_(disney) needs to be replaced with the new copyright tag, and Robin Hood himself needs to be implied to it.

wat8548 said:
I'm not sure I like "disney's_robin_hood" as a tag name. There's no clear indicator of the difference between it and "robin_hood_(disney)", something we really need if we are to overcome 16 years of precedent. Perhaps we could take a leaf out of Wikipedia's book and call it "robin_hood_(1973_film)", which is already the first line of our current robin_hood_(disney) wiki page, and at least makes it explicit that it doesn't refer to the character.

I'm not sure of its current status, but there were reports a while ago that Disney were going to give Robin Hood one of their "live action" photorealistic remakes. If that ever gets made, it would be helpful if we already used a tag including the year, either "robin_hood_(1973_film)" or just "robin_hood_(1973)".

That would match how we have the_little_mermaid_(1989) and the_little_mermaid_(2023).

On the other hand, the two versions of The Lion King are handled differently: the_lion_king tag doesn't have "(1994)" but its remake the_lion_king_(2019) does include the year.

chemistrynoisy said:
That would match how we have the_little_mermaid_(1989) and the_little_mermaid_(2023).

On the other hand, the two versions of The Lion King are handled differently: the_lion_king tag doesn't have "(1994)" but its remake the_lion_king_(2019) does include the year.

the_little_mermaid is supposed to be used only for the original Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, much as how there are other depictions of Robin Hood than Disney's. the_lion_king doesn't have that problem.