The tag implication #51924 unown_(pokemon) -> pokemon has been rejected.

Reason: self-explanatory.

EDIT: The tag implication unown_(pokemon) -> pokemon (forum #377255) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

Surprised this wasn’t already done

unown_! and unown_? already imply generation_3_pokemon

unown_a through to unown_z should imply generation_2_pokemon.

As a possible fallback, unown_(pokemon) could imply pokemon_(species), which would in turn imply the copyright tag.

https://e621.net/forum_topics/39568?page=1#forum_post_372998

Should be pokemon_(species), yeah?

faucet said:
As a possible fallback, unown_(pokemon) could imply pokemon_(species), which would in turn imply the copyright tag.

I’d like to have all unowns be grouped together, it’s nice to have things neatly grouped together imo.

cloudpie said:
Should be pokemon_(species), yeah?

Ah damn, didn’t notice that mistake.

The tag implication unown_(pokemon) -> pokemon (forum #377255) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

The bulk update request #5588 is active.

create implication unown_(pokemon) (403) -> pokemon_(species) (509223)

Reason: Please suggest to add other unown implications if you see the need to.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5588 (forum #377332) has been approved by @slyroon.

snpthecat said:
https://e621.net/forum_topics/39568?page=1#forum_post_372998

I tried to have those BURs from 2 months ago approved but they are still pending

The bulk update request #5588 (forum #377332) has been approved by @slyroon.