The bulk update request #5737 has been rejected.

create alias tigershark (0) -> tigershark_(disambiguation) (0)
change category tigershark_(disambiguation) (0) -> invalid

Reason: Wait, hear me out. I know what you're thinking. "Surely this is an obvious typo tag? What's wrong with just aliasing it to tiger_shark?" I thought the same, and then I actually looked at its contents.

post #1649223 is literally a tiger with a shark tail. post #1649231 is another depiction of the same character. Both were tagged tigershark. (Character's refsheet here)

post #3898044 is a shark with tiger markings. The title of the source post is simple "TIGERSHARK". Further investigation reveals that the tagged character, buxbi (character), normally takes the form of a tiger. Then I found this folder in the commissioner's FA gallery, titled "TigersharkMOM" and with the description "Buxbi... as a shark (mainly an excuse to draw sharks for Shark Week)". So this is either another hybrid or simply a case of alternate_species. Either way, it does not appear to have anything to do with the real-world species called "tiger sharks".

I've saved the best for last. Consider post #299704, which also looks more like a half-shark half-tiger than a tiger shark. It emerges that this is actually fanart of a game called Invizimals, of which I have never previously heard but appears to be some sort of Pokémon clone, which does indeed have a species called Tigershark (apologies for Fandom, if any fans of that game know a better wiki then drop the link). In total I found seven posts depicting this species, which I have now retagged tigershark_(invizimals). The most recent one was posted in May of this year.

So that leaves at least three possibilities for what this tag could mean, all of which have shown up in practice multiple times. Since nearly 25% of the former contents of tigershark turned out to not be tiger_shark-related (more if you discount one artist who was particularly insistent on using the wrong tag), I personally think this meets the threshold for disambiguation.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5737 (forum #380216) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #5737 (forum #380216) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

So... that's it? Rejected with no reason given, despite upvotes? And didn't even replace the proposal with something else, such as an alias to tiger_shark?

+1 for aliasing to tiger_shark

wat8548 said:
So... that's it? Rejected with no reason given, despite upvotes? And didn't even replace the proposal with something else, such as an alias to tiger_shark?

https://e621.net/forum_topics/35332?page=1#forum_post_345047

The bulk update request #5762 is active.

create alias tigershark (0) -> tiger_shark (1831)

Reason: The other option besides disambiguation

EDIT: The bulk update request #5762 (forum #380456) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #5762 (forum #380456) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.