Topic: [APPROVED] Grouping these genders

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

The bulk update request #2 is active.

implicate 4_males -> group
implicate 5_males -> group
implicate 6+_males -> group
implicate 4_females -> group
implicate 5_females -> group
implicate 6+_females -> group
implicate 4_unknown -> group
implicate 5_unknown -> group
implicate 6+_unknown -> group
implicate 4_herms -> group
implicate 5_herms -> group
implicate 6+_herms -> group
implicate 4_maleherms -> group
implicate 5_maleherms -> group
implicate 6+_maleherms -> group
implicate 4_gynomorphs -> group
implicate 5_gynomorphs -> group
implicate 6+_gynomorphs -> group
implicate 4_andromorphs -> group
implicate 5_andromorphs -> group
implicate 6+_andromorphs -> group

Reason: Are gender count tags global (entire image, even in multiple images situation), or local (per scene, like e6 (and possibly here's) character count tags)? It should follow the character count tags right?

Tangential question, Is 3+ a group or 4+? trio definitely implies group

EDIT: The bulk update request #2 (forum #33) has been approved by @Donovan_DMC.

Updated by System

    0 0 0 (0%)

@0_0 said:
Are gender count tags global (entire image, even in multiple images situation), or local (per scene, like e6 (and possibly here's) character count tags)? It should follow the character count tags right?

Like e6, per scene

@0_0 said:
Tangential question, Is 3+ a group or 4+? trio definitely implies group

I was mirroring e6 but I'm not really sure if that's desirable, or if it would be better to leave trio on its own, and have group be 4+

@0_0 said:
Reason: The group is 4+ option

I'm honestly not sure what happened here, that post has no BUR associated with it, but the BUR is associated with that post
So one side failed while the other side succeeded, who knows what happened but I'll look into it later (if you could mention it in Topic: General Bug Reports / Feature Requests that would be great)

  • 1