Topic: Marriage tags (lorification edition)

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

The bulk update request #7528 is pending approval.

create alias husband (1025) -> husband_(lore) (0)
create alias husband_and_husband (161) -> husband_and_husband_(lore) (0)
create alias husband_and_wife (4638) -> husband_and_wife_(lore) (0) # has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur
create alias married_couple (5770) -> married_couple_(lore) (0) # has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur
create alias spouse (5) -> spouse_(lore) (0)
create alias wife (1097) -> wife_(lore) (0)
create alias wife_and_husband_(lore) (0) -> husband_and_wife_(lore) (0)
create alias wife_and_wife (111) -> wife_and_wife_(lore) (0)
change category husband_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
change category husband_and_husband_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
change category husband_and_spouse_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
change category husband_and_wife_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
change category married_couple_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
change category spouse_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
change category spouse_and_spouse_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
change category wife_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
change category wife_and_husband_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
change category wife_and_spouse_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
change category wife_and_wife_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing

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.

create implication bride_and_bride (0) -> bride (696)
create implication bride_and_groom (1) -> bride (696)
create implication bride_and_groom (1) -> groom (110)
create implication groom_and_groom (0) -> groom (110)
create implication husband_(lore) (0) -> spouse_(lore) (0)
create implication husband_and_husband_(lore) (0) -> husband_and_spouse_(lore) (0)
create implication husband_and_spouse_(lore) (0) -> husband_(lore) (0)
create implication husband_and_spouse_(lore) (0) -> spouse_and_spouse_(lore) (0)
create implication husband_and_wife_(lore) (0) -> husband_and_spouse_(lore) (0)
create implication husband_and_wife_(lore) (0) -> wife_and_spouse_(lore) (0)
create implication spouse_and_spouse_(lore) (0) -> married_couple_(lore) (0)
create implication spouse_and_spouse_(lore) (0) -> spouse_(lore) (0)
create implication wife_(lore) (0) -> spouse_(lore) (0)
create implication wife_and_spouse_(lore) (0) -> spouse_and_spouse_(lore) (0)
create implication wife_and_spouse_(lore) (0) -> wife_(lore) (0)
create implication wife_and_wife_(lore) (0) -> wife_and_spouse_(lore) (0)
create implication wife_and_wife_(lore) (0) -> wife_(lore) (0)

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.

Watsit

Privileged

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.

  • 1