The bulk update request #1480 has been rejected.

create implication cuphead_(character) (466) -> animate_inanimate (22790)
create implication mugman (323) -> animate_inanimate (22790)
create implication elder_kettle (11) -> animate_inanimate (22790)
create implication ms._chalice (242) -> animate_inanimate (22790)

Reason: Because they're all living objects.
I wanted to add an object_head tag too...but I was cautious that a pic of them
could be humanoid that may pop up in the future and may not have their iconic cupheads.
So this should be good enough. As long as there's no future confusion, this should be the very basis of their species.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1480 (forum #319048) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

I might be recalling this incorrectly, but as far as I am aware, character species is not supposed to be tagged when they appear in the background as a poster or in a screen, for example as we can see in post #2175087

Characters do not get implied to species because they can be drawn as an alternate_species. In theory, an entirely humanized Cuphead can exist in an image, or any other similar situation which would cause them to not get tagged animate_inanimate.

gattonero2001 said:
I might be recalling this incorrectly, but as far as I am aware, character species is not supposed to be tagged when they appear in the background as a poster or in a screen, for example as we can see in post #2175087

siral_exan said:
Characters do not get implied to species because they can be drawn as an alternate_species. In theory, an entirely humanized Cuphead can exist in an image, or any other similar situation which would cause them to not get tagged animate_inanimate.

damn, so it gots to be done manually, what a drag.
Not for me though, ain't doing it.

The bulk update request #1480 (forum #319048) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.