The tag implication #52090 1660 -> 17th_century has been approved.

Reason: Just added a painting from 1660 to the database. The tag should imply ancient_art and 17th_century. Additionally 1660 should be made into a meta tag.

EDIT: The tag implication 1660 -> 17th_century (forum #380048) has been approved by @slyroon.

Do we really need specific year tags that far back? At some point tagging century is enough.

scth said:
Do we really need specific year tags that far back? At some point tagging century is enough.

I didn't even know E6 had tags this time-specific.

forbidden_fruit said:
I didn't even know E6 had tags this time-specific.

Hell, we even have the fish(er)man's wife: tentacle japanese 19th_century

I don't see the harm in creating implications for the years on a case-by-case basis.

maybe this should just be an alias.

If we know the specific year something was created, I don't see a problem with tagging it. There's already 9 years that imply the 17th century tag, so there is some precedent already.

Aliasing it to 17th century instead just makes our data have less accuracy. Not a fan of that. Anything much older than a few centuries isn't going to have an exact date so it's not like we'll have to worry about creating 40,000 tag implications dating back to the first known cave paintings.

The tag implication 1660 -> 17th_century (forum #380048) has been approved by @slyroon.