The bulk update request #857 is active.

create alias alcina_dimitrescu_(resident_evil) (0) -> alcina_dimitrescu (325)
remove implication lady_dimitrescu_(resident_evil) (0) -> resident_evil (2652)
create implication alcina_dimitrescu (325) -> resident_evil (2652)

Reason: Aliasing both names that are currently being used for this character to one tag:

• alcina_dimitrescu_(resident_evil)
• lady_dimitrescu_(resident_evil)

The name is unique enough that it does not really need a suffix.

Due to the way the BURs work, this will have to be done in two steps.
This is step 2:

alias lady_dimitrescu_(resident_evil) -> alcina_dimitrescu

Edit 1: split the BUR in two parts, since the lady_dimitrescu_(resident_evil) -> resident_evil implication was breaking the alias.

Edit 2: alias #52218 breaks this BUR, and will have to be rejected first.

EDIT: The bulk update request #857 (forum #308942) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #1361 is active.

create implication bela_dimitrescu (21) -> dimitrescu_sisters (23)
create implication cassandra_dimitrescu (21) -> dimitrescu_sisters (23)
create implication daniela_dimitrescu (21) -> dimitrescu_sisters (23)
create implication dimitrescu_sisters (23) -> resident_evil (2652)
create implication angie_(resident_evil) (13) -> resident_evil (2652)
create implication donna_beneviento (2) -> resident_evil (2652)
create implication karl_heisenberg (4) -> resident_evil (2652)
create implication salvatore_moreau (5) -> resident_evil (2652)
create implication the_duke_(resident_evil) (2) -> resident_evil (2652)
create implication ethan_winters (15) -> resident_evil (2652)

Reason: Implication of character tags to copyright tag

EDIT: The bulk update request #1361 (forum #317206) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

gattonero2001 said:
create implication dimitrescu_sisters -> bela_dimitrescu
create implication dimitrescu_sisters -> cassandra_dimitrescu
create implication dimitrescu_sisters -> daniela_dimitrescu

These seem backwards. Shouldn't dimitrescu_sisters be for when any of the sisters are present in an image, rather than all three at once?

watsit said:
These seem backwards. Shouldn't dimitrescu_sisters be for when any of the sisters are present in an image, rather than all three at once?

That’s what I was thinking. I’d rather flip the implication.

Flipped the sisters' implications and added a few more characters

create alias alcina_dimitrescu_(resident_evil) -> alcina_dimitrescu # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
remove implication lady_dimitrescu_(resident_evil) -> resident_evil

I think you need to change that alias to an update, and alias it in a post-BUR. The implication likely stops the alias.

furrin_gok said:
I think you need to change that alias to an update, and alias it in a post-BUR. The implication likely stops the alias.

Nope. An implication on the consequent does not block the alias.
On the other hand, the proposal in alias #52218 does block it.

The bulk update request #857 (forum #308942) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #1361 (forum #317206) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.