imply bad_<site>_link -> bad_link

BUR #57009 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication bad_twitter_link -> bad_link
create implication bad_tumblr_link -> bad_link
mass update bad_link source:*pbs.twimg.com* -bad_twitter_link -> bad_twitter_link
mass update bad_link source:*.tumblr.com* -bad_tumblr_link -> bad_tumblr_link

The upload page now shows a warning and links to bad Twitter link, bad Tumblr link, etc when someone tries to upload a bad link from a site. This means that we need to create bad_*_link tags for every site listed in bad link so that we can directly tell people which links should and should not be uploaded for each site.

Are we going to be able to move to a point where these are managed natively by the site if they exist then if we're also subdividing bad link into specific site tags and not just creating wikis for them?

WRS said in forum #426188:

Are we going to be able to move to a point where these are managed natively by the site if they exist then if we're also subdividing bad link into specific site tags and not just creating wikis for them?

For some of them that would be possible, but for others it would be difficult (ex. Facebook, topic #33528).

Damian0358 said in forum #426190:

For some of them that would be possible, but for others it would be difficult (ex. Facebook, topic #33528).

time for my twice-yearly attempt at resolving facebook sources

BUR #57014 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication bad_reddit_link -> bad_link
mass update bad_link source:*redd.it* -bad_reddit_link -> bad_reddit_link

redd.it

BUR #57015 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication bad_facebook_link -> bad_link
mass update source:*fbcdn* -source:*instagram* bad_link -bad_facebook_link -> bad_facebook_link

shrimp jesus

Double-checking the existing examples listed in bad link, we've still got false positives like in Behance, Instagram, Nijie, Sina, and Tencent's cases.

Ylimegirl said in forum #426201:

BUR #57015 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication bad_facebook_link -> bad_link
mass update source:*fbcdn* -source:*instagram* bad_link -bad_facebook_link -> bad_facebook_link

shrimp jesus

What's even the proper way to handle Facebook? I've noticed that you marked a massive amount of Facebook links as bad id (not even bad link) but they aren't dead posts. Facebook has normalised links but I guess sometimes they resolve wrongly. Particularly, none of the official art posts you marked as bad id are dead but seemingly just link to the wrong place.

WRS said in forum #426215:

What's even the proper way to handle Facebook? I've noticed that you marked a massive amount of Facebook links as bad id (not even bad link) but they aren't dead posts. Facebook has normalised links but I guess sometimes they resolve wrongly. Particularly, none of the official art posts you marked as bad id are dead but seemingly just link to the wrong place.

Well as far as I'm concerned until I can find the proper source it's pointing to a dead end, ergo a bad ID. If you know where it came from, feel free to fix it. I'm working on resolving them where I can but for all intents and purposes if a URL currently points to 1) an image link with an expired hash and 2) a post that doesn't exist then it seems like it's a bad ID and a bad link until further notice.

BUR #57028 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication bad_pinterest_link -> bad_link
mass update source:*://i.pinimg.com/ bad_link -bad_pinterest_link -> bad_pinterest_link

Pinterest (the devil). NGL started gardening this myself before realizing I can do a mass update

BUR #57030 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication bad_bilibili_link -> bad_link
mass update bad_link source:*hdslb.com* -bad_bilibili_link -> bad_bilibili_link

Bilibili.

BUR #57079 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication bad_artstation_link -> bad_link
mass update source:*artstation.com* bad_link -> bad_artstation_link

artstation

To be honest I'm still not sure if creating actual tags to categorise bad links is the right way to go to match the warning labels that were recently added unless there's plans to automate this in the future; and why they couldn't just stay as wiki entries because at least existing wikis can be linked even without an associated tag. Though I guess we already subcategorise bad id anyway even though most sites with an implicated tag need it to be done manually because only Pixiv is being checked by a bot.

WRS said in forum #426435:

To be honest I'm still not sure if creating actual tags to categorise bad links is the right way to go to match the warning labels that were recently added unless there's plans to automate this in the future; and why they couldn't just stay as wiki entries because at least existing wikis can be linked even without an associated tag. Though I guess we already subcategorise bad id anyway even though most sites with an implicated tag need it to be done manually because only Pixiv is being checked by a bot.

Hey if bossman Evazion decrees it, who am I to argue

Yeah I don't get either why we must create individual tags for each case.

Same reason why we have Pixiv sample, Twitter sample, etc. If someone uploads a bad Twitter link, it doesn't make sense to point them to bad link with 50 different sites and no clear explanation of what they're supposed to do for Twitter. If we want people to stop uploading bad Twitter links, there's needs to be a clear explanation saying "upload this link, not that" somewhere.

The bulk update request #57009 (forum #426186) has been approved by @evazion.

The bulk update request #57014 (forum #426200) has been approved by @evazion.

The bulk update request #57015 (forum #426201) has been approved by @evazion.

The bulk update request #57028 (forum #426239) has been approved by @evazion.