The bulk update request #2081 is active.

remove alias loli_dragon_(character) (0) -> loli_dragon (0)
remove alias shota_deer_(character) (0) -> shota_deer (0)
remove alias clemont_(pokemon) (28) -> clemont (0)
remove alias clemont_(pokémon) (0) -> clemont (0)
remove implication clemont (0) -> gym_leader (3012)

Reason: The first two aliases are disgustingly ambiguous and should never have been created

The last two aliases were requested by myself by mistake, they were supposed to be mass updates

EDIT: The bulk update request #2081 (forum #328319) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

What's ambiguous about Loli Dragon and Shota Deer? We don't tag body type/gender alongside a species, so the strong difference in language with those names makes it something that shouldn't end up being used.
The latter two fit perfectly fine as aliases. If somebody misses the underscore you'll want the tag to still be swapping to the right one.

Currently there's nothing under the loli_dragon and shota_deer tags, but that's because you abused your power to change the tag rather than waiting for the BUR to go through.

See also: Alias shota_deer_(character) -> shota_deer where both were given their current alias.

furrin_gok said:
What's ambiguous about Loli Dragon and Shota Deer?

Same thing as Young Dragon and Male Deer. They're easily confusable for loli+dragon and shota+deer, which we don't use specific tags for, rather than specific characters, so would be better disambiguated instead of character tags. loli_dragon_(character) and shota_deer_(character) would be ambiguous because anyone can create an unnamed loli dragon or shota deer character, so should have the creator's name as a suffix.

I would agree, however, that removing the dog_girl(berseepon09)/dog_boy(berseepon09) aliases is unnecessary.

The bulk update request #2081 (forum #328319) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

I genuinely believe, going back to the very first post and looking at the artist gallery, these aren't even character names they're just tags the site came up with and slapped onto the post. Which brings a point of contention of, can we just make up names for nameless characters for convivence sake? or are these completely invalid by technicality. The age related tags also don't make sense considering the characters aren't stagnant in age.

versperus said:
Which brings a point of contention of, can we just make up names for nameless characters for convivence sake?

I don't see why not. For the purposes of e621 (and imageboards in general) the existence of a name is not extremely important, as long as there is a tag for the depiction of the character in a post, since the point is being able to find relevant images for a given search. If the characters' creator decides to give them "proper" names in the future, a simple mass update will fix any issue that they might be inclined to object to.

gattonero2001 said:
I don't see why not. For the purposes of e621 (and imageboards in general) the existence of a name is not extremely important, as long as there is a tag for the depiction of the character in a post, since the point is being able to find relevant images for a given search. If the characters' creator decides to give them "proper" names in the future, a simple mass update will fix any issue that they might be inclined to object to.

if that's the case then, inline with what I said earlier about the age prefix it would be more appropriate to have a set of ground rules for stand in names for un-named characters. I personally think it would be appropriate just to call them something like "unnamed-species_(creator/copyright)" ergo "unnamed-dragon_(berseepon09)" as having the "unnamed" prefix can indicate to the community that it's a stand in name.