Making runes singular

BUR #54108 has been rejected.

create alias runes -> rune

runes is plural.
From howto:tag:

Use singular nouns. This ensures consistency and makes more sense for posts where only one of that object appears.

There is an existing singular tag, rune. Let's alias to that.

Although runes sometimes appear alone, like carved like standalone symbols into a rock, "runes" is analogous to "letters" or "text", as an alphabet. So I believe it makes more sense as plural as long as the tag isn't disambiguated to something like "runic lettering", "runic text", "runic alphabet", "runic inscriptions", etc.

I would agree with making it singular if it were about a runestone itself.

BUR #54113 has been approved by @evazion.

create alias rune -> runes

LQ said in forum #415869:

Although runes sometimes appear alone, like carved like standalone symbols into a rock, "runes" is analogous to "letters" or "text", as an alphabet. So I believe it makes more sense as plural as long as the tag isn't disambiguated to something like "runic lettering", "runic text", "runic alphabet", "runic inscriptions", etc.

I would agree with making it singular if it were about a runestone itself.

I did consider that. It seems most images in runes are not being used that way though. I can't tell in some cases because I can't read runes, but I suspect the large majority of images use them as decorative motifs rather than an alphabet. This image for example: post #10690911. Do the runes in her cloak lining spell anything? I would guess not, but I'm not sure.

Also, there are quite a lot of singular rune images in runes as well, so there is some tag gardening to be done if we are going to keep rune as well. Or do you think it would be better to alias this in the other direction and get rid of the singular rune? We don't have text and letter, or text and word, so it seems redundant.

BUR in the opposite direction added here for voting.

The bulk update request #54113 (forum #415883) has been approved by @evazion.

The bulk update request #54108 (forum #415864) has been rejected by @evazion.

BUR #54128 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication futhark -> runes

They're THE runes, the ones that people think about when they hear the word runes. I didn't know they had a tag until now in fact and assumed it was just covered under Runes lol

BUR #54130 has been rejected.

create implication madoka_runes -> runes
create implication made_in_abyss_runes -> runes

Implying anime runes to runes as well.

BUR #54131 has been approved by @evazion.

create alias norse_runes -> futhark
create alias nordic_runes -> futhark

I'm sure I'm not the only one who didn't know this tag existed and while I know what futhark means I'm sure plenty of people here don't so this should be a good utility alias.

Space_Force_Detective said in forum #415954:

BUR #54130 has been rejected.

create implication madoka_runes -> runes
create implication made_in_abyss_runes -> runes

Implying anime runes to runes as well.

We don't imply copyright-specific tags to general tags.

WRS said in forum #415987:

We don't imply copyright-specific tags to general tags.

While I understand that genuinely I don’t see a case where these WOULDN’T fall under runes.

Space_Force_Detective said in forum #415995:

While I understand that genuinely I don’t see a case where these WOULDN’T fall under runes.

To me at least, those two are not what I'm expecting when I search runes. I would have expected something more angular and linear, rather than curved, disjointed, and filled.

They can still fall under runes but you would tag both the copyright-specific tag and the general tag, the same way it's done for all other copyright-specific tags (assuming they have a general equivalent). For example, Elucidator doesn't imply sword but you would still apply relevant tags (e.g. holding sword) as needed.

I agree with keeping weapons unimplied, I can think of cases where they shouldn't be tagged as sword or weapon, like if they're drawn as a keychain or something, but I'm struggling to think of a case where Madoka Runes wouldn't get the rune tag IF they count as runes.

Right now there is only a single image in runes madoka_runes.

The bulk update request #54131 (forum #415955) has been approved by @evazion.

BUR #54206 has been rejected.

mass update Runes -Madoka_Runes -made_in_abyss_runes -> futhark

The Futhark tag isn't populated and the VAST majority of rune posts are the Nordic runes and would require minimal clean up (alternatively it can be done by hand by a contributor)

Space_Force_Detective said in forum #416175:

BUR #54206 has been rejected.

mass update Runes -Madoka_Runes -made_in_abyss_runes -> futhark

The Futhark tag isn't populated and the VAST majority of rune posts are the Nordic runes and would require minimal clean up (alternatively it can be done by hand by a contributor)

I assume you meant Runes -Madoka_Runes -made_in_abyss_runes instead, and even then: no, these things just require manual work. If you have to do cleanup you have to check them all anyway.

ANON_TOKYO said in forum #416176:

I assume you meant Runes -Madoka_Runes -made_in_abyss_runes instead, and even then: no, these things just require manual work. If you have to do cleanup you have to check them all anyway.

Fixed and would do it myself but not contributor so would take 10x the time it would for one to do it.

That would mistag hundreds of posts due to RuneScape, magic circles, nonsense glowing scribbles, enchantments, etc. counted as runes. At least 15% of the posts aren't futhark. Also Gold+ can tag script.

@Space_Force_Detective Futhark are actual historical Nordic runes dating from the 2nd to the 12th Centuries. Armanen runes are fake runes some early 20th Century guy literally made up to support a bastardized racial belief system of fake history.

Please stop trying to insert the Armanen runes Wikipedia page onto the Futhark wiki.

Historyanon said in forum #416181:

@Space_Force_Detective Futhark are actual historical Nordic runes dating from the 2nd to the 12th Centuries. Armanen runes are fake runes some early 20th Century guy literally made up to support a bastardized racial belief system of fake history.

Please stop trying to insert the Armanen runes Wikipedia page onto the Futhark wiki.

Regardless they ARE a Futhark variant that sees decently common use and are on the main runes page as well, regardless of what you think of them, hence me putting them back