The bulk update request #10766 is pending approval.

Reason: Monster Hunter species tags seem to always lag behind with the implications (Nergigante still doesn't imply Elder Dragon), so I just figured I'd put up a BUR for all new/changed ones in Wilds instead of waiting for individual instances of post to crop up that warrant implication requests.

The ones I can see being questionable, and explaining myself:
- Gore Magala has been '???' until Wilds, but in Wilds it has been reclassified as a Demi Elder, which is a new class altogether, so I don't think it warrants not having a class implication anymore. One could argue the Nerscylla-Temnoceron treatment might be applicable, but two points down I explain how it caused problems. If any new Demi Elders ever get added by Capcom, this would need to be undone, and I don't think there's a reason not to do it right from the start?
- Nerscylla hatchlings are the same species as Nerscylla, just young, so I don't see a reason against them aliasing to Nerscylla
- Nerscylla was aliased to Temnoceran until this, which was valid back when Nerscylla was the only one, but there's currently 3 unique species from that class, so that alias had to go
- I have no idea what to do about Guardians. Normally, I'd say they should imply both their parent species AND the construct class, but how we handle variations of monster species is inconsistent. Sometimes subspecies imply, like with the Raths, sometimes they alias like Nerscylla or Diablos. I don't really know how to handle a completely new variations in light of this, and I don't think I've been active in the community for long enough to be making that call

The bulk update request #10767 is pending approval.

create implication wudwud (32) -> lynian (2514)
create implication ajarakan (3) -> primatius (437)
create alias alpha_doshaguma (6) -> doshaguma (15)
create implication doshaguma (15) -> primatius (437)
create implication rey_dau (50) -> flying_wyvern (5208)
create implication arkveld (35) -> flying_wyvern (5208)
create implication quematrice (9) -> brute_wyvern (751)
create implication rompopolo (7) -> brute_wyvern (751)
create implication balahara (16) -> leviathan_(mh) (1417)
create implication hirabami (3) -> leviathan_(mh) (1417)
create implication uth_duna (41) -> leviathan_(mh) (1417)
create implication jin_dahaad (8) -> leviathan_(mh) (1417)
create implication chatacabra (30) -> amphibian_(mh) (68)
create implication nu_udra (7) -> cephalopod_(mh) (3)
create implication xu_wu (3) -> cephalopod_(mh) (3)
create implication zoh_shia (5) -> construct_(mh) (3)

Reason: Part 2: Large monsters (and Wudwuds, because I forgot about them), because it wouldn't let me fit it all in one BUR

And the followup that's gonna be needed once part 1 goes through and Temnoceran isn't aliased to Nerscylla anymore:

implicate nerscylla -> temnoceran
implicate lala_barina -> temnoceran
implicate rakna_kadaki -> temnoceran
implicate temnoceran -> monster_hunter

The bulk update request #10802 is pending approval.

create implication guardian_seikret (5) -> construct_(mh) (3)
create implication guardian_doshaguma (0) -> construct_(mh) (3)
create implication guardian_rathalos (1) -> construct_(mh) (3)
create implication guardian_ebony_odogaron (0) -> construct_(mh) (3)
create implication guardian_fulgur_anjanath (0) -> construct_(mh) (3)
create implication guardian_arkveld (0) -> construct_(mh) (3)

I have no idea what to do about Guardians. Normally, I'd say they should imply both their parent species AND the construct class, but how we handle variations of monster species is inconsistent. Sometimes subspecies imply, like with the Raths, sometimes they alias like Nerscylla or Diablos. I don't really know how to handle a completely new variations in light of this, and I don't think I've been active in the community for long enough to be making that call

So it seems the choice was made for me. I was under the impression that nobody would actually be drawing explicitly Guardian versions of monsters, but I was very wrong about that. I guess I'll ready up a BUR to include them, worst case scenario it'll just be rejected. Though, given they're a separate class and are pretty distinct visually (except for Arkveld), I think them being tagged separately is valid enough.

Variations of species (and characters) shouldn't imply each other. They can imply a family group tag where that tag isn't for a specific variation (e.g. there is no specific rath_wyvern variation; something can't just be a "rath wyvern", the depicted creature needs to be some specific variation or hybrid of variations; similar to how lycanroc, shaymin, and giratina work with Pokemon). This would otherwise make it impossible to search for posts that have both the guardian and non-guardian variations together in one post (searching "guardian_seikret seikret" would have posts that have just a guardian seikret and be no different than just searching "guardian_seikret", while searching "seikret" would return posts that don't have a normal seikret in sight).

watsit said:
Variations of species (and characters) shouldn't imply each other. They can imply a family group tag where that tag isn't for a specific variation (e.g. there is no specific rath_wyvern variation; something can't just be a "rath wyvern", the depicted creature needs to be some specific variation or hybrid of variations; similar to how lycanroc, shaymin, and giratina work with Pokemon). This would otherwise make it impossible to search for posts that have both the guardian and non-guardian variations together in one post (searching "guardian_seikret seikret" would have posts that have just a guardian seikret and be no different than just searching "guardian_seikret", while searching "seikret" would return posts that don't have a normal seikret in sight).

An extremely fair point! I'll edit the BUR to just imply Construct, then. It'll be pretty awkward, though, that they won't show up when searching for classes their parent species belong to. But I'm blaming Capcom for that one.

Unfortunately, this also complicates the issue with subspecies further, and I'll probably have to revise the Rath wyvern cleanup BUR yet again... At this rate, I probably should have made a discussion post on the forum first instead of jumping into trying to fix everything at one straight away.

Having family group tags for this would be ideal, but trying to do so for all variations in the series would require an absurd amount of them, and I cannot quite fathom how one would go about naming them either. Not to mention the issues with how natural it'd actually be for people to search with them. I suppose having the tags ignore each other is the best that can be done.