How come cupid is marked as a character tag? Is there some character called "Cupid", or is it just a mistake?

Maybe someone thought it should be marked as such for the standard image of the "Cupid" character with the nakedness and bow and all. But yes, I think it should just be a general tag. The only copyrights it's connected to don't have any characters *named* Cupid, far as I know. The only one I'm not familiar with is Dokutsu Monogatari, but since you're the one who uploaded that image I take it that it's not a real "character" in that either.

I changed it to General.

"Cupid" is actually a name--"cherub" is a description. This might call for an alias. If they're shooting heart-shaped arrows, it's Cupid the mythical character--if they're just babies with wings, it's a cherub.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupid

I don't think it warrants being a character tag, unless you also think we need a greek_and_roman_mythology copyright.

No, I sure don't want to complicate things. Leaving "cupid" as a general tag should be fine since it's evolved into a description anyway (armed flying baby). I'll go separate the cherubs out of the cupids and create wikis for both of them if there are no objections.

gladwort said: (armed flying baby)

Heh.

Anyway yeah your plan seems reasonable to me.

Done.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/c/45

However, the linked verses are in KJV (or NKJV, whatever), so it's a bit backwards to read it. Basically, though, not winged behbehs.

So, cherubim -> cherub alias (and seraphim -> seraph, if you wanna)?

Cherubim->cherub might be okay, but I just looked and there's a character from angel_dust (LOL) named seraph with 7 pics that would need to be modified first.

*cut to ticking stopwatch*
Okay, done. "char:seraph" is now "char:seraph_(angel_dust)". Tag scripts are the shit.

I'm not sure why anyone would tag an angel as "seraphim" or "seraph" unless it showed up as a character name, you think? We could just alias both of those to "angel". There are only two pics tagged seraphim right now.

I was about to point out what T5J8F8 already said: "cherub" is not a winged baby, it's one of the classes of angels from the Bible. The meaning you cite is about as correct as cupid being an armed baby, ie. not at all, but widespread nevertheless.

...armed FLYING baby. Yeah, I missed the point he was trying to make--sorry. How do you want to proceed, then? It's a small group so it won't take long to fix.

葉月 said:
The meaning you cite is about as correct as cupid being an armed baby, ie. not at all, but widespread nevertheless.

While I agree with you that the modern meaning of cherub is not only wrong, but intensely stupid, the fact remains that it is probably more widespread than the actual meaning of the word. It might be a good idea to go with the common use, since the people who know the original meaning are in such a small minority.

Yeah, and similarly ignore the fact Cupid is a name, and treat it as a generic description (ie. not a character tag). Thus, cherub → flying baby, cupid → cherub with a bow.

Sounds like the path of least resistance. As an aside, we could add the fact that these are accepted misconceptions to the wikis, citing their true origins. Knowledge is power.

Yup.

The war of misconcepted cherubs versus misconcepted cupids in AWN! (or at least I'd like to see it drawn)

It would be awfully one-sided, don't you think? Unless we armed the misconceived cherubs with fist weapons of some type. Those count as "unarmed" in WoW.

Well, cupids fire love-arrows, but cherubs are kinda non-gendered and not even people-people, so it may be entirely ineffective. What's worse, they could go The Mask on it and absorb the arrows to spit them back.

I just looked it up, and the flying babies that Western culture has mistaken for cherubim are actually "putti". Interesting. And cherubim is just plural for cherub--I got through this whole thread without figuring that out. Wikis updated to note the misconceptions.