The bulk update request #1001 is active.

Reason: A two-toned beak is multicolored, for the same reason why tags such as two_tone_body imply multicolored_body.

Many of the other tags are descriptions of different beak types (taken from the beak wiki page), which may only exist if a beak is present.

Futhermore, some of these tags describe beaks in a way that warrant a tag of the descriptor itself. i.e. a translucent_beak must be translucent.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1001 (forum #311728) has been approved by @slyroon.

abstractedtown said:
create implication two_tone_beak -> beak

This is unnecessary since multicolored_beak already implicates beak.

watsit said:
This is unnecessary since multicolored_beak already implicates beak.

You are right. I'll remove the first request

Seems like a lot of the tags listed on beak are missing implications. cyan_beak, pink_beak, tan_beak, white_beak, all the beak shapes and sizes, beak_sex, axe_beak, beak_pussy (not exactly sure what this is...), and you get the idea.

strikerman said:
Seems like a lot of the tags listed on beak are missing implications. cyan_beak, pink_beak, tan_beak, white_beak, all the beak shapes and sizes, beak_sex, axe_beak, beak_pussy (not exactly sure what this is...), and you get the idea.

Thank you for pointing this out! I added a lot of beak-related tags to the BUR. If there any tags that should be added or removed, please let me know

tan_beak -> beak appear to show up twice in your list. I don't know if that matters for the BUR, but figured I'd mention it, just in case.

vulkalu said:
tan_beak -> beak appear to show up twice in your list. I don't know if that matters for the BUR, but figured I'd mention it, just in case.

Fixed it anyway, thanks!

Most of these look good, but there are a few other edits and additions that could be made.

• For big_beak/huge_beak/hyper_beak, I think it would be better if they were organized into the implication chain hyper_beak -> huge_beak -> big_beak -> beak (to match the implications of other hyper_*, huge_*, and big_* tags).
• The implications flaming_beak -> fire, glowing_beak -> glowing, spotted_beak -> spots, and striped_beak -> stripes would also be good implications to add. The tag translucent_beak should also have the implication translucent_beak -> translucent and the alias transparent_beak -> translucent_beak (to match the aliases/implications of other translucent_* tags).
• I'm wondering if narrow_beak should be aliased to thin_beak, and if pointy_beak should be aliased to sharp_beak. However, I don't know if there is a noticeable difference between these tags.

d.d.m. said:
Most of these look good, but there are a few other edits and additions that could be made.

• For big_beak/huge_beak/hyper_beak, I think it would be better if they were organized into the implication chain hyper_beak -> huge_beak -> big_beak -> beak (to match the implications of other hyper_*, huge_*, and big_* tags).
• The implications flaming_beak -> fire, glowing_beak -> glowing, spotted_beak -> spots, and striped_beak -> stripes would also be good implications to add. The tag translucent_beak should also have the implication translucent_beak -> translucent and the alias transparent_beak -> translucent_beak (to match the aliases/implications of other translucent_* tags).
• I'm wondering if narrow_beak should be aliased to thin_beak, and if pointy_beak should be aliased to sharp_beak. However, I don't know if there is a noticeable difference between these tags.

Got it, thanks! I am not quite sure how to handle narrow/pointy beak, but I implemented the rest of the additions and corrections that you provided

Added toothed_beak -> teeth because a toothed beak needs to have teeth.

The bulk update request #1001 (forum #311728) has been approved by @slyroon.