The tag implication #37580 beast_(disney) -> disney has been approved.

Reason: The Caption "_(disney)" indicates that this is the Disney version of the character. Therefore, this version of the character should be implicated to the Disney Corporation. Also considering creating a tag for Disney's Version of Beauty and the Beast.

EDIT: The tag implication beast_(disney) -> disney (forum #304379) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

Also considering creating a tag for Disney's Version of Beauty and the Beast.

There is already beauty_and_the_beast_(1991) and I believe that beast_(disney) should be implicated to it instead, along with other characters. I wrote a few Disney film BURs a while ago and I'll try to finish some more when I have time.

The year suffix follows an existing standard for Disney films that are adaptations of earlier stories.

gattonero2001 said:
There is already beauty_and_the_beast_(1991) and I believe that beast_(disney) should be implicated to it instead, along with other characters.

What about the 2017 film?

gattonero2001 said:
There is already beauty_and_the_beast_(1991) and I believe that beast_(disney) should be implicated to it instead, along with other characters. I wrote a few Disney film BURs a while ago and I'll try to finish some more when I have time.

The year suffix follows an existing standard for Disney films that are adaptations of earlier stories.

I did not know that tag existed since it is only attached to one post. Also, it is not implicated to Disney yet either. We might need a Mass Tag Edit.

The tag implication beast_(disney) -> disney (forum #304379) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.