The bulk update request #972 is active.

remove alias dog_bowl (0) -> food_bowl (259)
create alias tag (8) -> tag_(disambiguation) (1026)
create alias tag_collar (6) -> collar_tag (4725)
create alias tagged_collar (0) -> collar_tag (4725)
create alias ear_tags (4) -> ear_tag (4714)
create alias eartags (0) -> ear_tag (4714)
create alias tagged_ears (0) -> ear_tag (4714)
create implication ear_tag (4714) -> ear_piercing (230209)

Reason: Some more pet tags. The alias dog_bowl -> food_bowl needs to be un-aliased before dog_bowl can be aliased to pet_bowl. Also topic #20057 needs to be rejected before I can submit an alias for pet_tag -> collar_tag.

• Originally derived from topic #27931.

EDIT: The bulk update request #972 (forum #311283) has been approved by @slyroon.

Seems reasonable,
except maybe

1)

create implication ear_tag (3157) -> ear_piercing (155403)

ear_tag wiki says: "A tag clipped to or hanging from a piercing of an ear, ..."
ie. apparently not all ear_tags are attached via piercing ... apparently some are just clipped on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ear_tag includes
"Metal ear tag: an aluminium, steel or brass rectangle with sharp points, clipped over the edge of the ear, with the identification stamped into it."
(ie. apparently clipped on, with NO piercing)
(That wikipedia article also mentions "Electronic Identification Tags", but doesn't say how they are attached)

and (do duplicates (alias and/or implications) create a problem???)
2)
2a) "create alias <3_collar_tag (0) -> heart_collar_tag (188)"
AND
2b) "create implication heart_collar_tag (188) -> collar_tag (2672)"
have already been done with BUR #1735 (approved).

***

Tags For Another BUR
...
alias pet_tag -> collar_tag

alias pet_tag -> collar_tag can now be done since
I rejected my implication suggestion at topic #20057 (Only today did I realize i could reject an implication suggestion I had made).

user 187249 has apparently been inactive for eight months (latest activity apparently post changes 8 months ago)
(EDIT: and their e621 profile says "Level (Unactivated)")
so someone who isn't user_187249 will probably have to do the followup BUR that user_187249 suggested.

The bulk update request #972 (forum #311283) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6805 is active.

create alias dog_bowl (0) -> pet_bowl (1645)
create alias pet_tag (0) -> collar_tag (4725)

Reason: Followup and a correction
Opinions on it implying ear_accessory (it does not have any aliases or implications yet, i wonder if it would be a good idea to make it an umbrella tag)

EDIT: The bulk update request #6805 (forum #392876) has been approved by @slyroon.

Can anyone find an actual example of an ear tag here that's clipped instead of pierced? In real life they're always pierced (as far as i know). This may just be an incorrect wiki page.

The bulk update request #7063 is pending approval.

remove implication ear_tag (4714) -> ear_piercing (230209)

Reason: Separating the controversial part of the BUR to its own BUR

This is what the metal ear tag description on wikipedia is describing and it is a piercing. Beyond that, unless it's a closeup where you can see the hole it's not possible to prove that any image tagged as piercing isn't actually a clip-on or a sticker. You also can't prove that 'blood' in a lot of postsisn't actually ketchup and makeup. At a certain point taking 'tag what you see' too literally becomes unhelpful for everyone.

There might be an argument made for necklace pendants or keychains that are obviously modeled to look like ear tags. As far as I can tell this isn't something that has caused issues in the past.

The bulk update request #6805 (forum #392876) has been approved by @slyroon.