The bulk update request #5198 has been rejected.

Reason: Many of these are needlessly disambiguated or need implications to their franchise or related species.Other reasons in no particular order:
• Thalyssra probably doesn't need her full title.
• We can disambiguate generic species (e.g. goblins) because they can already be found by adding the warcraft tag. They're inconsistently tagged anyway.
• Demon Hunters are part demon and Death Knights are undead. While both of those are lore traits they have visible physical traits like horns and smoky eyes.
• It turns out felstalkers are a subspecies of felhounds. Felhunter is another name for the species. Their apperance differs, so I left them as two tags with one implying the other. Concept art: felhunter , felstalker

Edit: Rejecting to reorganize BURs into appropriate groups.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5198 (forum #370437) has been rejected by @Arkham_Horror.

mass update ogre_(warcraft) -> ogre
mass update goblin_(warcraft) -> goblin
mass update gnome_(warcraft) -> gnome

No. If Warcraft has specific identifiable versions of these generic fantasy concepts with a thousand interpretations, they qualify for a species tag.

(Also the troll tag really needs to be disambiguated and split up at some point.)

mass update felhunter_(warcraft) -> felhound

Was this intentional?

wat8548 said:
Was this intentional?

Yes. Sorry I forgot to specify the reason for that one in the original post.

Felhunter is another name for the species. Only felstalkers seem to use a different model. The names for different NPCs with the same model can vary. From the fan wiki: "Felhounds (also known as fel hounds, felbeasts, felhunters, hellhounds, manastalkers, fel demons and fel stalkers)"

wat8548 said:
No. If Warcraft has specific identifiable versions of these generic fantasy concepts with a thousand interpretations, they qualify for a species tag.

Warcraft goblins, gnomes, and ogres are all pretty similar to the general fantasy norms. trolls are probably the only ones that really stray far enough to deserve their own tag.

arkham_horror said:
mass update first_arcanist_thalyssra_(warcraft) -> thalyssra

I don't see a reason to shorten it that much. Getting rid of the _(warcraft) and leaving it first_arcanist_thalyssra makes sense, but single word names like thalryssa are risky for name clashes (some other character now or in the future also using the name).

Also you probably should be using aliases and instead of mass updates, to prevent people from continuing to use the old tag and so people's predefined searches or blacklists with the previous tag will automatically pick up the new tag.

Speaking of which, you forgot to add naga_(warcraft) to your li--

Wait, we don't have that? Ah, geez I knew I'd forgotten something. These are very much different than what naga is currently understood to describe on e6.

Mostly wat8548's objections. Also, yeah, Our Nagas are Different.

The bulk update request #5198 (forum #370437) has been rejected by @Arkham_Horror.