The bulk update request #2585 has been rejected.

create implication crucifixion -> crucifix

Reason:

EDIT: The bulk update request #2585 (forum #166052) has been rejected by @evazion.

@AltTranslationAccount Did you read the definition of the crucifix tag? It's for the religious symbol with Jesus on a cross, not just any random character being crucified.

Also, please don't submit alias/implication requests without providing a reason.

Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying. So the implication I was looking for was crucifixion -> cross? If there's no cross, it isn't a crucifixion, right?

Depends. Would you call post #1129852 a cross? Also post #1302606 is tagged with crucifixion but no cross in sight.
Another example: post #1960661. Do we tag those with cross?

Before anybody suggests it, let me add that I don't think the reverse implication holds true either. The crucifixion tag is generally used for people hanging on a cross, but a tiny figure like in post #3120112 probably shouldn't count as a person. The wikis could be made more clear about this, though.

nonamethanks said:

Depends. Would you call post #1129852 a cross?

No. However, it also does not match the definition crucifixion in the wiki, so it is not relevant.

nonamethanks said:

Also post #1302606 is tagged with crucifixion but no cross in sight.

Good catch, that's also not crucifixion.

nonamethanks said:

Another example: post #1960661. Do we tag those with cross?

In my opinion yes, those are crosses. I'm not aware of anything preventing another crossbar from being added.

AltTranslationAccount said:

No. However, it also does not match the definition crucifixion in the wiki, so it is not relevant.

I'm not sure that the wiki is a definition of the tag, so much as an explanation of what the historic practice involved. post #1129852 is as close to crucifixion as anything on the site.

skylightcrystal said:

I'm not sure that the wiki is a definition of the tag, so much as an explanation of what the historic practice involved. post #1129852 is as close to crucifixion as anything on the site.

Definitions of the word "crucifixion" even outside on outside sources detail that it is a method of execution and a specific one. If we want the meaning of the tag to be different from the meaning of the word, we ought to change the wiki to include that information. As it is, post #1129852 is not crucifixion nor does it entail the tag.

AltTranslationAccount said:

Definitions of the word "crucifixion" even outside on outside sources detail that it is a method of execution and a specific one. If we want the meaning of the tag to be different from the meaning of the word, we ought to change the wiki to include that information. As it is, post #1129852 is not crucifixion nor does it entail the tag.

Crucifixion just means being tied to a pole and left to die. The pole doesn't have to have the shape of a cross - "crux" is just a vertical pole in Latin.
See this example which counts as a crucifixion.

In any case, the wiki definition is from 2008, when probably there weren't any posts in crucifixion that didn't deserve the cross tag. The wiki definition should be expanded, since it doesn't make sense to use a different definition than what everyone else in the real world uses.

nonamethanks said:

Crucifixion just means being tied to a pole and left to die. The pole doesn't have to have the shape of a cross - "crux" is just a vertical pole in Latin.
See this example which counts as a crucifixion.

Okay. That makes sense.

The bulk update request #2585 (forum #166052) has been rejected by @evazion.

Add cross manually as appropriate. The cross of Saint Andrew is another example of an implement that can be used for crucifixion but that isn't considered a cross for our purposes.

I've updated the wiki entry for crucifixion.