The bulk update request #1755 is active.

create implication cheezborger_(chikn_nuggit) (336) -> chikn_nuggit (1902)
create implication chikn_nuggit_(chikn_nuggit) (538) -> chikn_nuggit (1902)
create implication cofi_(chikn_nuggit) (437) -> chikn_nuggit (1902)
create implication fwench_fwy_(chikn_nuggit) (571) -> chikn_nuggit (1902)
create implication hawt_saus_(chikn_nuggit) (160) -> chikn_nuggit (1902)
create implication iscream_(chikn_nuggit) (411) -> chikn_nuggit (1902)
create implication slushi_(chikn_nuggit) (389) -> chikn_nuggit (1902)
create implication sody_pop_(chikn_nuggit) (151) -> chikn_nuggit (1902)
create implication sody_pop's_mother_(chikn_nuggit) (0) -> chikn_nuggit (1902)

Reason: Implication of character tags to copyright tag.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1755 (forum #323289) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

gattonero2001 said:
Reason: Implication of character tags to copyright tag.

I cant easily verify that those characters officially belong to the chikn_nuggit copyright tag. Can you cite some evidence/sources? (need to remind myself of that for my own request too).

Additionally I'd rename chikn_nuggit to chikn_nuggit_(copyright) (or a more specific/correct name if available) so character:chikn_nuggit doesn't need to be chikn_nuggit_(chikn_nuggit) (which is an ugly repeating redundant redundancy of repetition ;-) ).
And I'd remove the _(chickn_nuggit) from most of those tags after/if they get implicated.

kalider said:
I cant easily verify that those characters officially belong to the chikn_nuggit copyright tag. Can you cite some evidence/sources? (need to remind myself of that for my own request too).

I would assume gattonero got the tags from the on-site search engine.

Additionally I'd rename chikn_nuggit to chikn_nuggit_(copyright) (or a more specific/correct name if available) so character:chikn_nuggit doesn't need to be chikn_nuggit_(chikn_nuggit) (which is an ugly repeating redundant redundancy of repetition ;-) ).
And I'd remove the _(chickn_nuggit) from most of those tags after/if they get implicated.

In this case, I'd vote for a maintaining the status quo. The people uploading these images have been taking care of it: None of the images of chikn_nuggit -chikn_nuggit_(chikn_nuggit) need the character tag added. There is precedent for tags of this form e.g. inuyasha_(inuyasha) so there's no reason to pull the rug out from under them.

matrixmash said:
I would assume gattonero got the tags from the on-site search engine.

And? How does that answer the question after an official (which requires "outside") source?
After all I don't know chikn_nuggit at all. I can't infer if those tag relationships are correct or not just from internal sources.

matrixmash said:
In this case, I'd vote for a maintaining the status quo. The people uploading these images have been taking care of it: None of the images of chikn_nuggit -chikn_nuggit_(chikn_nuggit) need the character tag added. There is precedent for tags of this form e.g. inuyasha_(inuyasha) so there's no reason to pull the rug out from under them.

I think I read somewhere that character tags should only end on _(<copyright>) if it's required to distinguish from other characters with the same name.
-> see eg. zootopia - most of the character don't have _(zootopia) as part of their name. Only those that are too common / conflict with other characters have it.

Personally I don't care either way.

kalider said:
And? How does that answer the question after an official (which requires "outside") source?
After all I don't know chikn_nuggit at all. I can't infer if those tag relationships are correct or not just from internal sources.

External source

I think I read somewhere that character tags should only end on _(<copyright>) if it's required to distinguish from other characters with the same name.
-> see eg. zootopia - most of the character don't have _(zootopia) as part of their name. Only those that are too common / conflict with other characters have it.

Personally I don't care either way.

That is a guideline, not a hard rule. Besides, having the copyright as a suffix makes it easier to determine which copyright the characters belong to, which I assume was your main objection to the BUR.

gattonero2001 said:
External source

Thx.

gattonero2001 said:
That is a guideline, not a hard rule. Besides, having the copyright as a suffix makes it easier to determine which copyright the characters belong to, which I assume was your main objection to the BUR.

Hmmm yeah, I guess if one doesn't know a(n?) IP... but it makes character tags sooo loooongcat. :-/
I have and had no objections to this BUR. How the individual tags in are named has no influence on your/the reason for this BUR (implication from characters to copyright).
I'm just not a fan of - in my eyes - unneccesary long tags but in this case it can with reason be dismissed as splitting hairs.

This would be a helpful BUR, since a lot of them get uploaded without the copyright tag.

kalider said:
I think I read somewhere that character tags should only end on _(<copyright>) if it's required to distinguish from other characters with the same name.
-> see eg. zootopia - most of the character don't have _(zootopia) as part of their name. Only those that are too common / conflict with other characters have it.

Personally I don't care either way.

In this case, since all characters are named after foods and related consumables, having a suffix helps.

The bulk update request #1755 (forum #323289) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #2523 is active.

create implication fwench_fwy_(true_form) (4) -> chikn_nuggit (1902)

Reason: Fwench Fwy has a true form more fitting of a "proper" western dragon, shown off in post #3305490. Although only one other post shows off that form currently, it is still a separate form worth tagging separately.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2523 (forum #335371) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #2523 (forum #335371) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.