The tag implication #66788 rath_wyvern -> flying_wyvern has been rejected.

Reason: I've come across a post with a rathian not tagged as a flying wyvern, although properly tagged as a rath wyvern. I went to dig a little deeper, and it seems that rath_wyvern does not in fact imply flying_wyvern, even though the tag (encompassing rathian and rathalos) is indeed only used for flying wyverns.

HOWEVER, rathalos does imply it properly. I believe I heard something about recursive implications not supposed to happen, so if this should instead be done through a BUR that also removes the direction implication from rathalos to flying_wyvern, I can correct this (but there's a few more recursive implications in the more granular tags for these as well)

EDIT: The tag implication rath_wyvern -> flying_wyvern (forum #441452) has been rejected by @Bugabond.

The tag implication rath_wyvern -> flying_wyvern (forum #441452) has been rejected by @Bugabond.

The bulk update request #10769 has been rejected.

create implication rath_wyvern (1503) -> flying_wyvern (5634)
remove implication rathalos (862) -> flying_wyvern (5634)
remove implication rathian (748) -> monster_hunter (19044)
remove implication azure_rathalos (47) -> rath_wyvern (1503)
remove implication silver_rathalos (26) -> rath_wyvern (1503)
remove implication pink_rathian (93) -> rath_wyvern (1503)
remove implication gold_rathian (38) -> rath_wyvern (1503)

Reason: I wasn't happy with the mess the above would still leave in implication history. The implications leading back and forth from rathian and rathalos are a spaghetti.

For the record, only the first change from this BUR has any functionality. The others are removing implications that, with the first change approved, would be redundant.

EDIT: The bulk update request #10769 (forum #443832) has been rejected by @Bugabond.

The bulk update request #10769 (forum #443832) has been rejected by @Bugabond.