The bulk update request #10836 is active.

create implication synapsid (144) -> prehistoric_species (69618)
remove implication pelycosaur (50) -> prehistoric_species (69618)
remove implication edaphosaurid (6) -> prehistoric_species (69618)
remove implication gorgonopsid (59) -> prehistoric_species (69618)
create implication dicynodont (7) -> therapsid (76)
create implication cynodont (1) -> therapsid (76)
create implication dinocephalian (4) -> therapsid (76)

Reason: So I've noticed that groups of synapsids are separately implicating prehistoric_species, despite these all also implicating synapsid, and the latter claiming to be used exclusively for non-mammal synapsid tagging.

It might be worth aliasing synapsid to 'non-mammal synapsid', or something along those lines, to really show that it's not to be used for mammals, but perhaps for now that's not necessary?

This is part 1, which is just doing the broad groups. I will handle individual species in a second BUR in the same topic

EDIT: The bulk update request #10836 (forum #444839) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #10837 is active.

create alias aelurognathus(gorgonopsid) (0) -> aelurognathus (2)
create alias bulbasaurus_(genus) (0) -> bulbasaurus_phylloxyron (6)
create implication moschops (1) -> dinocephalian (4)
create implication estemmenosuchus (1) -> dinocephalian (4)
create implication oligokyphus (1) -> cynodont (1)
create implication dinogorgon (2) -> gorgonopsid (59)
create implication aelurognathus (2) -> gorgonopsid (59)
create implication diictodon (1) -> dicynodont (7)
create implication bulbasaurus_phylloxyron (6) -> dicynodont (7)

Reason: Species/Genus-specific implications to complete the loop

It is very likely that I missed some synapsids that are already posted on the site. I only searched posts that already had the synapsid tag, and added a few from memory. If there's any other synapsids present on the site that aren't in the BURs above, please add them below (or let me know, and I'll add them to above through the power of edits)

EDIT: The bulk update request #10837 (forum #444840) has been approved by @spe.

bugabond said:
It might be worth aliasing synapsid to 'non-mammal synapsid', or something along those lines, to really show that it's not to be used for mammals, but perhaps for now that's not necessary?

I don't think it's necessary. Granted, mammals are synapsids, but this is a dinosaur vs. bird scenario. Birds are technically dinosaurs, but there's been so much evolutionary time since non-bird dinosaurs existed and there's such a difference in the public eye between the two groups that being too taxonomically rigorous would only make things more confusing for the vast majority of e621 users. In effect, the (non-bird) dinosaurs we'd be using the dinosaur tag to search for would be absolutely swamped by all the birds, making it harder to search for them. Yes, we could just alias dinosaur to non-bird_dinosaur, but I think that's overkill for our purposes. So it would be with synapsid versus mammal.

clawstripe said:
I don't think it's necessary. Granted, mammals are synapsids, but this is a dinosaur vs. bird scenario. Birds are technically dinosaurs, but there's been so much evolutionary time since non-bird dinosaurs existed and there's such a difference in the public eye between the two groups that being too taxonomically rigorous would only make things more confusing for the vast majority of e621 users. In effect, the (non-bird) dinosaurs we'd be using the dinosaur tag to search for would be absolutely swamped by all the birds, making it harder to search for them. Yes, we could just alias dinosaur to non-bird_dinosaur, but I think that's overkill for our purposes. So it would be with synapsid versus mammal.

Yeah, that is perfectly fair, and that is pretty much what I was thinking as well. I highly doubt anyone is going to be misusing a tag as niche as synapsid anyways, so it should be good as is.

The bulk update request #10836 (forum #444839) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #10837 (forum #444840) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #10960 is pending approval.

remove implication dicynodont (7) -> therapsid (76)
create implication dicynodont (7) -> anomodont (2)
create implication suminia (1) -> anomodont (2)
create implication anomodont (2) -> therapsid (76)
create implication placerias (1) -> dicynodont (7)

Reason:

What are the odds that someone posts a non-dicynodont anomodont anyways?

foolish me thought

Apparently high enough, given suminia is now a tag

That one's on me

Also including placerias here, since the post with it wasn't properly tagged before