The bulk update request #1000 has been rejected.

create implication light_inner_ear_fluff (122) -> inner_ear_fluff (121992)
create implication burlywood_inner_ear_fluff (0) -> inner_ear_fluff (121992)
create implication multicolored_inner_ear_fluff (20) -> inner_ear_fluff (121992)
create implication wheat_inner_ear_fluff (0) -> inner_ear_fluff (121992)
create implication striped_inner_ear_fluff (9) -> inner_ear_fluff (121992)
create implication striped_inner_ear_fluff (9) -> stripes (175040)
create implication dark_inner_ear_fluff (1) -> inner_ear_fluff (121992)
create implication gradient_inner_ear_fluff (27) -> inner_ear_fluff (121992)
create alias silver_inner_ear_fluff (1) -> grey_inner_ear_fluff (1351)
create alias multi_tone_inner_ear_fluff (0) -> multicolored_inner_ear_fluff (20)

Reason: colored_inner_ear_fluff is inner_ear_fluff
I rejected my old BUR because it was rather "meh". I added burlywood_inner_ear_fluff and wheat_inner_ear_fluff because it is a tag. But to be honest, I'd rather like to alias them to tan_inner_ear_fluff. I don't think we need 10 different grades for brown body parts.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1000 (forum #311715) has been rejected by @slyroon.

The multi_tone variant is for more than 2 tones, it should be an implication to multicolored, but apart from that it looks okay.

You should slap on an implication to stripes for the striped tag you have there.

thevileone said:
The multi_tone variant is for more than 2 tones...

I thought that too befor, but two_tone_Fur/body/scales/hair/tail/etc imply multi_colored

thevileone said:
...implication to stripes...

I'll add that ^^

I personally don't see much use in keeping burlywood_inner_ear_fluff and wheat_inner_ear_fluff as separate tags, but I also don't see any problem with implicating those to inner_ear_fluff either. The implications to inner_ear_fluff can be undone if folks ever decide to alias away the burlywood_*/wheat_* tags later on.

The bulk update request #1017 has been rejected.

Reason: A supplemental BUR, implicating the [color]_inner_ear_fluff tags to the [color]_inner_ear tags, and implicating the [color]_inner_ear tags to the [color]_ears tags.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1017 (forum #311958) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

d.d.m. said:
implicating the [color]_inner_ear_fluff tags to the [color]_inner_ear tags, and implicating the [color]_inner_ear tags to the [color]_ears tags.

I don't think that should happen. post #2787419 for example has white_inner_ear_fluff, but not white_ears, the ears themselves are brown. With post #2781380, there's red_inner_ear_fluff, but I don't think I'd call them red_inner_ears or red_ears.

watsit said:
I don't think that should happen. post #2787419 for example has white_inner_ear_fluff, but not white_ears, the ears themselves are brown. With post #2781380, there's red_inner_ear_fluff, but I don't think I'd call them red_inner_ears or red_ears.

Yeah. Under my first BUR I said, you are right with that. But after thinking about it, I changed my mind.
I tagged this: tan_ears, pink_inner_ear, and white_inner_ear_fluff
post #2798556
And if I search for white/pink_ears I wouldn't expect to get this
I use [color]_ears for the outside, [color]_inner_ear_fluff for the fluff, and [color]_inner_ear for the skin on the inside of the ear.

I see how folks might not consider those as a part of the ear. However, I would consider each of those as a part of the ear. I'll split this BUR into two separate BURs, one focused on implicating *_inner_ear_fluff -> *_inner_ear and the other focused on implicating *_inner_ear -> *_ears (this way each group of tags can be voted on separately).

If folks think it's a good idea, [color]_outer_ears could also be utilized as a tag group (and the [color]_outer_ears tags can be implicated to their correlating [color]_ears tag). That way folks can distinguish between the [color]_inner_ear and the [color]_outer_ear, and both can be implicated to their [color]_ears base tag.

The bulk update request #1025 has been rejected.

Reason: A supplemental BUR focused on implicating the [color]_inner_ear tags to the [color]_ears tags.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1025 (forum #312048) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #1025 (forum #312048) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #1017 (forum #311958) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #7301 is active.

create implication light_inner_ear_fluff (122) -> inner_ear_fluff (121992)
create implication dark_inner_ear_fluff (1) -> inner_ear_fluff (121992)
create implication two_tone_inner_ear_fluff (10) -> multicolored_inner_ear_fluff (20)
create implication multicolored_inner_ear_fluff (20) -> inner_ear_fluff (121992)
create implication gradient_inner_ear_fluff (27) -> inner_ear_fluff (121992)
create alias silver_inner_ear_fluff (1) -> grey_inner_ear_fluff (1351)
create implication striped_inner_ear_fluff (9) -> inner_ear_fluff (121992)
create implication striped_inner_ear_fluff (9) -> stripes (175040)

Reason: Added
imply two_tone_inner_ear_fluff -> multicolored_inner_ear_fluff
Removed implications for burlywood, wheat, and multitone inner ear fluff. Burlywood implication would've blocked the BUR, wheat and multi-tone are no longer in use and will probably see no use.

EDIT: The bulk update request #7301 (forum #397789) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #7301 (forum #397789) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #1000 (forum #311715) has been rejected by @slyroon.