getting rid of (some of) the ugly fate (all) tags

Yeah that BUR is wrong, it'll just merge the parent and one of the subtags.

BUR #7017 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

This is the correct syntax.

The bulk update request #7007 (forum #195709) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

The bulk update request #7017 (forum #195749) has been approved by @nonamethanks.

BUR #7061 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

remove alias saber_extra -> nero_claudius_(fate)
create alias saber_extra -> nero_claudius_(fate/extra)
remove alias saber_of_red -> mordred_(fate)
create alias saber_of_red -> mordred_(fate/apocrypha)
remove alias lancer_(fate/extra_ccc) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate)
create alias lancer_(fate/extra_ccc) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate/extra_ccc)
remove alias ruler_(fate/apocrypha) -> jeanne_d'arc_(fate)
create alias ruler_(fate/apocrypha) -> jeanne_d'arc_(fate/apocrypha)
remove alias sakura_saber -> okita_souji_(fate)
create alias sakura_saber -> okita_souji_(koha/ace)

Some remnants from the (all) moves.

The bulk update request #7061 (forum #195942) has been approved by @nonamethanks.

EDIT: misread BUR.

BUR #7069 has been rejected.

remove alias ishtar_(fate/grand_order) -> ishtar_(fate)
mass update ishtar_(fate) -> ishtar_(fate/grand_order)
create alias ishtar_(fate)_(all) -> ishtar_(fate)
create implication ishtar_(fate/grand_order) -> ishtar_(fate)
remove alias medb_(fate/grand_order) -> medb_(fate)
mass update medb_(fate) -> medb_(fate/grand_order)
create alias medb_(fate)_(all) -> medb_(fate)
create implication medb_(fate/grand_order) -> medb_(fate)
remove alias scathach_(fate/grand_order) -> scathach_(fate)
mass update scathach_(fate) -> scathach_(fate/grand_order)
create alias scathach_(fate)_(all) -> scathach_(fate)
create implication scathach_(fate/grand_order) -> scathach_(fate)

Getting rid of the remaining _(all) tags. De-aliases are required before mass updates unlike the previous cases, because the _(f/go) tags are currently aliased. I think this should work?

BUR #7071 has been approved by @evazion.

create alias ishtar_(fate)_(all) -> ishtar_(fate)
create alias medb_(fate)_(all) -> medb_(fate)
create alias scathach_(fate)_(all) -> scathach_(fate)

Option number two is, as evazion said in forum #194027, simply aliasing the _(all) to the _(fate) tag. This in practice gets rid of the _(all) tag entirely and transforms the "base form" tag into the main tag, aligning these characters with the rest of the Fate/Grand Order cast none of which have overaraching catch-alls (outside of the big exceptions like Jeanne, Elizabeth and Artoria with many many different versions, all of which originated outside of F/GO).

This is my preferred option, for the record.

The bulk update request #7071 (forum #195983) has been approved by @evazion.

The bulk update request #7069 (forum #195981) has been rejected by @evazion.

I'm still don't completely agree with Scathach being left without a base tag. How can Scathach Skadi with the original Scathach (which has been drawn quite often) even be searched now? They are distinct characters, to the point where it seems iffy if dual persona (which has been used sometimes no doubt, but not at all consistently) even applies. Though honestly with this, I wonder if a preferable solution would just be to unimply Scathach Skadi from Scathach.

EB said:

I'm a little disappointed there was no decision to garden a base tag for Scathach before going ahead with this. How can Scathach Skadi with the original Scathach (which has been drawn quite often) even be searched now? They are distinct characters, to the point where it seems iffy if dual persona (which has been used sometimes no doubt, but not at all consistently) even applies. Though honestly with this, I wonder if a preferable solution would just be to unimply Scathach Skadi from Scathach.

I think dual persona should definitely apply to Scathach and Scathach Skadi, seeing as one of the examples given on the wiki is Saber and Saber Alter. Yeah sure Skadi isn't an Alter but she's also literally named SCATHACH Skadi because blah blah blah composite servant nonsense to sell more gacha currency. Imho dual persona should apply to any art of [Fate character A] and [variant of Fate character A] depicted together, specifically for the issue of searchability you mentioned, and I don't think unimplicating them would make much sense.
Overall this is pretty much exactly the same situation as other characters with just one or two variants; eg. searching art of Sitonai and Illya together, or Illya and Prisma Illya, or Taira no Kagekyo and Ushiwakamaru, etc. I wouldn't support unimplicating those either, but neither giving them a catch-all; they should rightfully be dual persona. To a lesser extent because they are technically-the-same-character-but-not-quite, this also affects cases like Rider da Vinci and Caster da Vinci, or Rider Astolfo and Saber Astolfo, or Caster Gilgamesh and Gilgamesh, so on.

In practice outside of the few exceptions that have a ton of variants and thus a catch-all tag like Artoria or Jeanne, it's functionally impossible to search for pictures of [character] and [variant] shown together, unless it's properly tagged with something like dual persona.
or unless every single fate character that has so much as a single variant gets a base form tag + a catch-all tag and haha god no please

In some ways, Scathach Skadi to Scathach seems like a somewhat similar kind of situation as Ereshkigal to Ishtar (not to the same extent, but Skadi is distinct in hair color too, for instance), who are not implicated. They have also been inconsistently tagged dual persona too, though I assume that was to account for very early on when we tagged all of them Tohsaka Rin. Getting off course again, but on that note, shouldn't Luviagelita Edelfelt not be tagged for Astraea for consistency's sake?

If we do decide to keep Skadi implied to Scathach and with no base form tag, I can help garden dual persona though.