The bulk update request #907 is active.

create implication foreskin_vore (27) -> vore (69524)
create implication trunk_vore (12) -> vore (69524)
create implication ear_vore (9) -> vore (69524)
create implication belly_vore (0) -> vore (69524)
create alias endosomatophilia (0) -> endosoma (1437)
create implication object_vore (624) -> vore (69524)
create implication planet_vore (117) -> object_vore (624)
create alias aural_vore (0) -> ear_vore (9)

Reason: Where do I begin with this?

First of all I'm hesitant to add toilet_vore to the BUR since it is essentially no different from flushing, but I would like to hear opposing arguments if there are any.

Most of the implications are pretty clear as they are all forms of vore. Although endosoma does not have "vore" in its name it is a type of vore and should be tagged as such. I also believe that the existing tags endosomatophlia and endosomatophilia should be aliased to endosoma since endosoma is much more commonly used, and the name is more concise.

On the vore wiki page, planet_vore is listed as a subset of object_vore, in which the predator is swallowing an object. In planet vore the planet would be said object. Even if the object has living creatures (i.e. planets) it would still count as object vore, as per the object_vore wiki page. This is why planet_vore should imply object_vore.

Aural_vore should be aliased to ear_vore for the same reason why aural_penetration is aliased to ear_penetration, being that the word ear is more concise than aural.

The tag self_vore is redundant and should be aliased to auto_vore which already implies vore.

I'm not sure what to do with the unusual_vore tag since I would rather have tags that describe the specific type of vore for searching/blacklist purposes. Maybe someone loves cleavage vore but they hate navel vore.

If there is anything that you think is straight up wrong in this BUR please tell me what suggestions you have.

EDIT: The bulk update request #907 (forum #309983) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #907 (forum #309983) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

Try to make sure you check these for duplicates before submitting. It's easy for half or more to get rejected due to implications already existing.

rainbow_dash said:
Try to make sure you check these for duplicates before submitting. It's easy for half or more to get rejected due to implications already existing.

Thank you for the feedback! I was not aware about this rule before, but I understand it now

abstractedtown said:
Thank you for the feedback! I was not aware about this rule before, but I understand it now

Less of a rule, more of a mechanical limitation. It quite simply won't work if it's a duplicate.