The bulk update request #878 is active.

create implication ferdinand_(film) (74) -> blue_sky_studios (1930)
create implication horton_hears_a_who!_(film) (44) -> blue_sky_studios (1930)
create implication robots_(film) (30) -> blue_sky_studios (1930)
create alias horton_hears_a_who_(film) (0) -> horton_hears_a_who!_(film) (44)

Reason: All of these films were created by Blue Sky Studios.

And Blue Sky Studios should be implied to Disney because of their recent acquisition, but that's a topic for another day.

EDIT: The bulk update request #878 (forum #309476) has been approved by @slyroon.

I am fan of "Rio", and Blue Sky also mede the movies of "Ice Age".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Sky_Studios

mexicanfurry said:
I am fan of "Rio", and Blue Sky also mede the movies of "Ice Age".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Sky_Studios

That is true! But those movie tags are already implied to Blue Sky Studios so that's not what I'm requesting.

Should implicate horton_hears_a_who!_(film) instead of the one without the exclamation point

abstractedtown said:
And Blue Sky Studios should be implied to Disney because of their recent acquisition, but that's a topic for another day.

I disagree, Blue Sky was part of Disney for less than 10% of its lifespan. I think you should only implicate copyrights to the companies that created them, rather than companies that bought out their creators, otherwise you'd have to implicate star_wars, the_simpsons and marvel to disney, and the_elder_scrolls and banjo-kazooie to microsoft.

The bulk update request #878 (forum #309476) has been approved by @slyroon.