The bulk update request #7635 has been rejected.

change category disability (9529) -> lore
change category blind (1954) -> lore
change category deaf (38) -> lore

Reason: Since you can’t always see a disability, such as being deaf, I feel adding it to the lore category would fit these tags better. Also, please forgive me if I did anything wrong here, this is my first time doing a BUR.

EDIT: The bulk update request #7635 (forum #401263) has been rejected by @slyroon.

You may want to change the _(lore) tag to lore instead of the original tag

Though I'm not sure about moving the tags to lore in the first place, especially for disability, which can sometimes be fully visible under twys

snpthecat said:
You may want to change the _(lore) tag to lore instead of the original tag

Though I'm not sure about moving the tags to lore in the first place, especially for disability, which can sometimes be fully visible under twys

I don’t think it makes a difference? They’re still going to end up as the same tags.
From my knowledge, with some other lore tags you can see it, and others you can’t.

lankylank said:
I don’t think it makes a difference? They’re still going to end up as the same tags.

Oh, no, no they wont, especially since you're mass updating instead of aliasing (and even if it were an alias the order in which a BUR is done is not from bottom to top (even if it were you can't change non _(lore) tags to the lore category))

snpthecat said:
Oh, no, no they wont, especially since you're mass updating instead of aliasing (and even if it were an alias the order in which a BUR is done is not from bottom to top (even if it were you can't change non _(lore) tags to the lore category))

Well as I said this is my first time doing this. Either I thought this was an alias when making this, or I was confused with alias and implication because they feel so similar that they are almost the same thing to me.
I’m not an expert. I don’t know entirely how this stuff works.

Edit: actually yeah, now that I remember, I didn’t type mass update anywhere in this post. I have no clue why it ended up like that.

lankylank said:
Well as I said this is my first time doing this. Either I thought this was an alias when making this, or I was confused with alias and implication because they feel so similar that they are almost the same thing to me.
I’m not an expert. I don’t know entirely how this stuff works.

Edit: actually yeah, now that I remember, I didn’t type mass update anywhere in this post. I have no clue why it ended up like that.

• alias - merge tag X into tag Y, so this permanently removes tag X and makes tag Y the only tag.
• imply - make tag X imply tag Y, so tagging tag X automatically tags tag Y as well.
• update - move everything from tag X to tag Y, while still leaving tag X taggable.

You can still edit your BURs to change any mistakes or include new additions.

snpthecat said:
Though I'm not sure about moving the tags to lore in the first place, especially for disability, which can sometimes be fully visible under twys

I dunno, some of the lore tags could technically be evident by the content of the post, like familial relations could definitely be stated through text or we could show a character literally giving birth, and a trans character can have visible scars from gender reassignment surgery.

the main question would be "would this tag be more useful if it was tagged by lore standards?". that being said, I'm not sure there's much of a case here...

snpthecat said:
...(even if it were you can't change non _(lore) tags to the lore category))

This is correct. The Lore category is specifically programmed so that a tag must end with _(lore) before it can be put in Lore.

As it stands now, you're trying to move every post in those three general tags over to equivalent tags with _(lore) suffixes instead of merging them together. You're also trying to convert those same three general tags into Lore tags instead of the suffixed ones that can go in there. I don't think that's what you intended.

thegreatwolfgang said:

• alias - merge tag X into tag Y, so this permanently removes tag X and makes tag Y the only tag.
• imply - make tag X imply tag Y, so tagging tag X automatically tags tag Y as well.
• update - move everything from tag X to tag Y, while still leaving tag X taggable.

You can still edit your BURs to change any mistakes or include new additions.

Thank you, that makes me feel less regretful. I know it’s stupid but I started to get a bit of anxiety after making that mistake.

You can always edit the BUR unlike Alias and Implication requests.
So don't worry about mistakes.

clawstripe said:
This is correct. The Lore category is specifically programmed so that a tag must end with _(lore) before it can be put in Lore.

As it stands now, you're trying to move every post in those three general tags over to equivalent tags with _(lore) suffixes instead of merging them together. You're also trying to convert those same three general tags into Lore tags instead of the suffixed ones that can go in there. I don't think that's what you intended.

It isn’t. I’ve updated it now, thank you. Please understand that, despite how long I’ve been here there are a lot of things I don’t quite understand. Please be patient with me because coincidentally, I too am partially disabled.

lankylank said:
The bulk update request #7635 has been rejected.

change category disability (9529) -> lore
change category blind (1954) -> lore
change category deaf (38) -> lore

Reason: Since you can’t always see a disability, such as being deaf, I feel adding it to the lore category would fit these tags better. Also, please forgive me if I did anything wrong here, this is my first time doing a BUR.

Disability and blind have blocking transitive relationships because they have active implications and aliases. Either you unalias and unimply everything from disability then readd the implications to disability_(lore) and blind_(lore) or you do it through an alias request
You also have not changed the category section of your BUR, but the problem with that has already been covered above (and below)

lankylank said:
It isn’t. I’ve updated it now, thank you. Please understand that, despite how long I’ve been here there are a lot of things I don’t quite understand. Please be patient with me because coincidentally, I too am partially disabled.

"change category" section is still incorrect.
Should be category *_(lore) -> lore

lankylank said:
It isn’t. I’ve updated it now, thank you. Please understand that, despite how long I’ve been here there are a lot of things I don’t quite understand. Please be patient with me...

That's fine. We've all had to start somewhere and learn. I certainly didn't join e621 knowing how to use a BUR (mostly because they didn't exist back then, but still).

As Mexi Co says, don't forget to edit in the _(lore) suffixes to the tags in the last three lines of the BUR so you can have the right tags be switched over.

The bulk update request #7638 is pending approval.

remove alias disabled_person (0) -> disability (9529)
remove alias disabled_people (0) -> disability (9529)
remove alias functionally_impaired (0) -> disability (9529)
remove alias functional_impairment (0) -> disability (9529)
remove alias handicapped (0) -> disability (9529)
remove alias disabled (0) -> disability (9529)
remove implication amputee (6519) -> disability (9529)
remove implication paraplegic (367) -> disability (9529)
remove implication blind (1954) -> disability (9529)

Reason: As SNP says above, disability and blind have aliases and implications that need to be removed before they can be aliased away. You can see all of those on the tags' wiki pages, but I think it'd be faster and less of a pain to LankyLank if I do it myself since I'm already here.

The follow-up BUR once this one gets approved. It assumes the opening BUR's category change lines are fixed to using _(lore). Also, it adds an implication of deaf_(lore) to disability_(lore).

alias disabled_person -> disabled_(lore)
alias disabled_people -> disabled_(lore)
alias functionally_impaired -> disabled_(lore)
alias functional_impairment -> disabled_(lore)
alias handicapped -> disabled_(lore)
alias disabled -> disabled_(lore)
imply amputee -> disabled_(lore)
imply paraplegic -> disabled_(lore)
imply blind_(lore) -> disabed_(lore)
imply deaf_(lore) -> disabled_(lore) 

clawstripe said:

imply amputee -> disabled_(lore) 

If "amputee" means missing a part of the body, then I don't think it should imply the lore category.

clawstripe said:
The bulk update request #7638 is pending approval.

remove alias disabled_person (0) -> disability (9529)
remove alias disabled_people (0) -> disability (9529)
remove alias functionally_impaired (0) -> disability (9529)
remove alias functional_impairment (0) -> disability (9529)
remove alias handicapped (0) -> disability (9529)
remove alias disabled (0) -> disability (9529)
remove implication amputee (6519) -> disability (9529)
remove implication paraplegic (367) -> disability (9529)
remove implication blind (1954) -> disability (9529)

Reason: As SNP says above, disability and blind have aliases and implications that need to be removed before they can be aliased away. You can see all of those on the tags' wiki pages, but I think it'd be faster and less of a pain to LankyLank if I do it myself since I'm already here.

The follow-up BUR once this one gets approved. It assumes the opening BUR's category change lines are fixed to using _(lore). Also, it adds an implication of deaf_(lore) to disability_(lore).

alias disabled_person -> disabled_(lore)
alias disabled_people -> disabled_(lore)
alias functionally_impaired -> disabled_(lore)
alias functional_impairment -> disabled_(lore)
alias handicapped -> disabled_(lore)
alias disabled -> disabled_(lore)
imply amputee -> disabled_(lore)
imply paraplegic -> disabled_(lore)
imply blind_(lore) -> disabed_(lore)
imply deaf_(lore) -> disabled_(lore) 

having cross-category implications like this feels wrong to me. currently we don't have any general tags imply lore, and only one lore tag implies a general tag.

mexi_co said:
If "amputee" means missing a part of the body, then I don't think it should imply the lore category.

In which case, we can't really convert disability to the Lore category because there are some disabilities that do fall under TWYS.

dba_afish said:
having cross-category implications like this feels wrong to me. currently we don't have any general tags imply lore, and only one lore tag implies a general tag.

And this is why it's always a good idea to post one's BURs for the public to critique, even for an Admin (which I'm not, of course). Having more than one brain working on things is very helpful.

If a disability is sometimes TWYS and sometimes not, then should we split it up into something like visual_disability visibly_disabled (General tag) and disabled_(lore) (Lore tag)?

Although, at the rate we're going, perhaps we should just leave things as they are? :\

clawstripe said:
In which case, we can't really convert disability to the Lore category because there are some disabilities that do fall TWYS.
And this is why it's always a good idea to post one's BURs for the public to critique, even for an Admin. Having more than one brain working on things is very helpful.

If a disability is sometimes TWYS and sometimes not, then should we split it up into something like visual_disability (General tag) and disabled_(lore) (Lore tag)?

Although, at the rate we're going, perhaps we should just leave things as they are? :\

We could split it up like visibly trans and trans (lore). Visual disability sounds like they're colourblind/blind so i don't think that's a good name for it

snpthecat said:
We could split it up like visibly trans and trans (lore). Visual disability sounds like they're colourblind/blind so i don't think that's a good name for it

Visibly disabled works, I think?

nimphia said:
Visibly disabled works, I think?

That was what I was aiming for but forgot the word for.

The bulk update request #7635 (forum #401263) has been rejected by @slyroon.