The bulk update request #9330 is pending approval.

create implication cross_ear_ring (129) -> cross_ear_piercing (210)
create implication cross_ear_piercing (210) -> cross_piercing (126)
create implication cross_piercing (126) -> piercing (414994)
create implication cross_piercing (126) -> cross (6893)
create implication inverted_cross_ear_ring (3) -> inverted_cross_ear_piercing (59)
create implication inverted_cross_ear_ring (3) -> cross_ear_ring (129)
create implication inverted_cross_ear_piercing (59) -> inverted_cross_piercing (0)
create implication inverted_cross_ear_piercing (59) -> cross_ear_piercing (210)
create implication inverted_cross_ear_piercing (59) -> inverted_cross (1005)

Reason: Most of the cross ear piercings are not ear rings, a majority are stud ear piercings rather than ring piercings with crosses dangling off of them. Most of the rest is implying piercings to piercings. Inverted_cross implies cross, so the piercings should too.If people feel that we should separate cross_ear_piercing and cross_ear_ring I’ll add that to the BUR and remove the alias request this just made more sense to me than having two separate cross ear piercing tags.

So I sat down and went through the cross tag, there were a lot of untagged cross_ear_piercings (rings or otherwise), so I'm working on now keeping the cross_ear_ring in one tag and all cross_ear piercings in cross_ear_piercing.

edit: finally got around to fixing up the inverted_cross_ear_ring tags, now they are correctly sorted into inverted_cross_ear_piercing for all of them and inverted_cross_ear_ring for inverted cross piercings with rings instead of studs.

just updated this as I finally got around to fixing up the inverted_cross_ear_ring tags, now they are correctly sorted into inverted_cross_ear_piercing for all of them and inverted_cross_ear_ring for inverted cross piercings with rings instead of studs.