The tag implication #38395 ear_blush -> blush has been approved.

Reason: ear_blush are blush. the ear_blush tag is well used and should have some details like that added.

EDIT: The tag implication ear_blush -> blush (forum #307052) has been approved by @Millcore.

No matter how obvious you think it is, please add a reason.

furrin_gok said:
No matter how obvious you think it is, please add a reason.

reason added.

The bulk update request #770 is active.

create implication nose_blush (289) -> blush (994198)
create implication body_blush (17205) -> blush (994198)
create implication breast_blush (1628) -> body_blush (17205)
create implication pussy_blush (5295) -> body_blush (17205)
create implication butt_blush (5354) -> body_blush (17205)
create implication balls_blush (1346) -> body_blush (17205)
create implication penis_blush (955) -> body_blush (17205)
create implication foot_blush (1327) -> body_blush (17205)
create implication leg_blush (101) -> body_blush (17205)
create implication arm_blush (25) -> body_blush (17205)
create implication belly_blush (2042) -> body_blush (17205)
create alias blushing_ears (0) -> ear_blush (1484)
create alias blushing_stomach (0) -> belly_blush (2042)
create alias ball_blush (0) -> balls_blush (1346)

Reason: The rest of the "blushing" implications.

Added the blushing_ears -> ear_blush alias for the sake of consistency.
Also aliasing ball_blush to balls_blush since plural "balls" is usually used in other tags instead of the singular.

Edit 1: Modified the BUR to have blushing body parts imply body_blush.
Edit 2: Added blushing_stomach -> belly_blush alias.

EDIT: The bulk update request #770 (forum #307064) has been approved by @Millcore.

anguirus12345 said:
reason added.

Much appreciated. Thank you.

I'm not really a fan of the idea of the blush tag becoming so generic without a specific way of searching for blushing that's only on the face.

I wouldn't be expecting an image to appear in the results when searching for blush just because their balls are blushing rather than their face.

I agree, a facial_blush should be a tag if these implications go through. You could have anything that isn't a facial blush imply body blush instead or blush, and avoid having to have a facial blush tag.

Good point. I modified the BUR to have those implications point towards body_flush.
I don't think that nose_blush (whatever that even means) and ear_blush qualify as body blush, though.

The bulk update request #770 (forum #307064) has been approved by @Millcore.

The tag implication ear_blush -> blush (forum #307052) has been approved by @Millcore.