The bulk update request #7528 is pending approval.

Reason: Revamping BUR #4688 because forum #38355 has been dead for almost a year now.

Putting husband, wife, and related tags under the lore category (like Watsit and Wandering Spaniel suggested) before doing the tag parenting. Also throwing spouse (lore) into the mix to cover ambiguous gender and non-binary (lore).

The bulk update request #7529 is pending approval.

Reason: BUR à deux.

Implications for the tags. Also adding bride and groom, but not suggesting changing them to lore tags because they're intrinsically visual (wedding setting, wedding gowns and tuxedoes) nor implying them to husband (lore) and wife (lore) because that depends on whether vows were had or its cosplay.

slocheze said:
change category husband_and_husband_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
...
change category spouse_and_spouse_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
...
change category wife_and_wife_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
...
create implication bride_and_bride (0) -> bride (679)

create implication groom_and_groom (0) -> groom (109)

Would these be better named husbands_(lore), spouses_(lore), wives_(lore), brides, and grooms? That would also help in cases of 3+ partners where there's more than one husband, wife, spouse, etc, and fits with prexisting tags like brothers_(lore)/sisters_(lore)/etc.

slocheze said:
create implication husband_(lore) (0) -> spouse_(lore) (0)
...
create implication wife_(lore) (0) -> spouse_(lore) (0)

I'm a bit iffy on these. As we see with mother_(lore)/parent_(lore)/etc, these are often erroneously used when a depicted character is merely a mother/parent/etc in canon, when they're only supposed to be used when they're with their child. I could see wife_(lore) being mistagged on images on Toriel, for example, without Asgore also present. Since they should only be used with their spouse present, wife_and_spouse_(lore)/husband_and_spouse_(lore)/etc makes them redundant.

+1 to loreifying these tags!!
But I agree with Watsit about husband_(lore), wife_(lore) and spouse_(lore) being redundant, unless we do want to tag whether a character is married in canon even on solo images. I'd support that (people might want to search for canonicslly-married characters even without their spouses, for example if they have an affair/infidelity kink) but I know it's controversial, I don't think we ever came to a real agreement on the mother_(lore) thread.
Also agree with wives/husbands/spouses as Watsit said.

wandering_spaniel said:
+1 to loreifying these tags!!
But I agree with Watsit about husband_(lore), wife_(lore) and spouse_(lore) being redundant, unless we do want to tag whether a character is married in canon even on solo images. I'd support that (people might want to search for canonicslly-married characters even without their spouses, for example if they have an affair/infidelity kink) but I know it's controversial, I don't think we ever came to a real agreement on the mother_(lore) thread.
Also agree with wives/husbands/spouses as Watsit said.

To clarify, my meh vote is pretty much for these same reasons. Plus one to loreifying, but not super sold on the singular tags. It's kind of in a similar boat to my in-law and missing adoption tags BUR where I'm not super fond of the tree that already exists but I wrote the BUR to match existing tags anyways until those are actually sorted out.

The bulk update request #9462 is pending approval.

create alias canon_couple (5498) -> canon_couple_(lore) (0)
change category canon_couple_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing

Reason: In a similar vein with loreifying relationships, canon_couple is also against TWYS and should be aliased/recategorized. Also, a married couple within lore is by definition a "canon couple", necessitating an implication.

Also agreed on the issue of singular tags, it doesn't make sense to tag a character as a spouse unless their spouse is also present.

atomicblaze21 said:
The bulk update request #9462 is pending approval.

create alias canon_couple (5498) -> canon_couple_(lore) (0)
change category canon_couple_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing

Reason: In a similar vein with loreifying relationships, canon_couple is also against TWYS and should be aliased/recategorized. Also, a married couple within lore is by definition a "canon couple", necessitating an implication.

Also agreed on the issue of singular tags, it doesn't make sense to tag a character as a spouse unless their spouse is also present.

I'd argue, because I think that lore tags are used to reflect the lore of the image, not any parent media. Canon couple and similar tags are mutually exclusive.

• Implying every married couple post to canon couple would falsely tag posts as the latter. Ex: a post that depicts Judy Hopps×Nick Wilde (a non-canon but totally based ship) as husband and wife; post #918210, post #2279522, or post #4653709
• A canon x oc post with a marriage dynamic would be tagged as both canon and non-canon. Ex: a post with a fan character joining a couple of any canon in a threesome or polyamorous marriage; post #2806199, post #4062047, post #4550516
• A crossover ship post would likewise have the same paradox, with the rare exception of an official crossover, and even then rarely applies the respective series. Ex. post #3453128, post #3730443, post #4554971

slocheze said:
I'd argue, because I think that lore tags are used to reflect the lore of the image, not any parent media. Canon couple and similar tags are mutually exclusive.

• Implying every married couple post to canon couple would falsely tag posts as the latter. Ex: a post that depicts Judy Hopps×Nick Wilde (a non-canon but totally based ship) as husband and wife; post #918210, post #2279522, or post #4653709
• A canon x oc post with a marriage dynamic would be tagged as both canon and non-canon. Ex: a post with a fan character joining a couple of any canon in a threesome or polyamorous marriage; post #2806199, post #4062047, post #4550516
• A crossover ship post would likewise have the same paradox, with the rare exception of an official crossover, and even then rarely applies the respective series. Ex. post #3453128, post #3730443, post #4554971

You make some good points. I'm willing to concede on the implication, I'll remove it from my BUR. However, I still think that canon_couple should be aliased and recategorized to Lore since it doesn't fit TWYS.

tbh I don't think canon couple is really a useful tag to begin with

Lore tags for these are useful, but I feel having non-lore tags would be useful for cases where visual cues are used like an emphasis on rings.
post #2155757

regsmutt said:
Lore tags for these are useful, but I feel having non-lore tags would be useful for cases where visual cues are used like an emphasis on rings.
post #2155757

i disagree because the incest lore tags are used when theres explicit confirmation in the image that the parties involved are related.

im not really sure who would be looking for images where there are visual cues but not images where there aren't visual cues or vice versa who wouldnt be served by tags like wedding_ring (or whatever visual cue they are looking for)

furward_thinker said:
i disagree because the incest lore tags are used when theres explicit confirmation in the image that the parties involved are related.

No, they're used when the artist/character owner/etc, says the characters doing stuff are related, it requires nothing in the image confirming the characters are related. In fact, often the image doesn't have anything confirming characters are related (simply looking similar doesn't inherently mean characters are related).