The bulk update request #6425 has been rejected.

mass update xenia_(linux_fox) -> xenia_(linux)
mass update tux_the_penguin -> tux_(linux)
create implication xenia_(linux) (189) -> linux (284)
create implication tux_(linux) (67) -> linux (284)

Reason: Why are their species-es in the names? Why are they both formatted differently? Makes no sense.

I hope I wrote this BUR right; never done one before.

EDIT: The bulk update request #6425 (forum #389557) has been rejected by @slyroon.

chesapeake said:
The bulk update request #6425 has been rejected.

mass update xenia_(linux_fox) -> xenia_(linux)
mass update tux_the_penguin -> tux_(linux)
create implication xenia_(linux) (189) -> linux (284)
create implication tux_(linux) (67) -> linux (284)

Reason: Why are their species-es in the names? Why are they both formatted differently? Makes no sense.

I hope I wrote this BUR right; never done one before.

It would be better to use an alias instead of a mass update. A mass update only moves the tags over one time, which is useful if the original tag needs to be used for something else, while an alias will make it so that every future instance of the original tag is moved over to the new tag as well. That way, if someone uses the tag xenia_(linux_fox) or tux_the_penguin like a year from now, it will automatically be changed to the correct tag instead of just sitting in the old tag.

Otherwise, this looks good, +1

The bulk update request #6577 is active.

create alias xenia_(linux_fox) (3) -> xenia_(linux) (189)
create alias tux_the_penguin (2) -> tux_(linux) (67)
create implication xenia_(linux) (189) -> linux (284)
create implication tux_(linux) (67) -> linux (284)

Reason: aliases instead of mass updates

EDIT: The bulk update request #6577 (forum #391005) has been approved by @slyroon.

I mean, the original can just be changed to aliases, but ok

The bulk update request #6425 (forum #389557) has been rejected by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6577 (forum #391005) has been approved by @slyroon.