The bulk update request #1385 is pending approval.

create implication alphabittle_blossomforth_(mlp) (60) -> mlp_g5 (4325)
create implication argyle_starshine_(mlp) (26) -> mlp_g5 (4325)
create implication phyllis_cloverleaf_(mlp) (29) -> mlp_g5 (4325)
create alias hitch_trailblazer (1) -> hitch_trailblazer_(mlp) (774)
create alias izzy_moonbow (0) -> izzy_moonbow_(mlp) (1285)
create alias pipp_petals (0) -> pipp_petals_(mlp) (1098)
create alias sunny_starscout (0) -> sunny_starscout_(mlp) (1092)
create alias zipp_storm (0) -> zipp_storm_(mlp) (870)

Reason: imply characters to copyright tag plus some aliases

After this BUR: alias pipp_(mlp) to pipp_petals_(mlp)

EDIT 2022-07-21:
Removed already existing implications

implicate [[pipp_petals_(mlp)]] -> [[mlp_g5]] # duplicate of implication #42193
implicate [[queen_haven_(mlp)]] -> [[mlp_g5]] # duplicate of implication #44321
implicate [[zipp_storm_(mlp)]] -> [[mlp_g5]] # duplicate of implication #43684

EDIT 2024-03-24:
Removed following line, already aliased to pipp_petals_(mlp) so it's no longer necessary.

remove implication pipp_(mlp) (0) -> mlp_g5 (3950) # missing

Do we really need _(mlp) suffixes for those names?
I know that's the current pattern for mlp characters, but in my opinion, the names are unique enough to stand on their own.

bitwolfy said:
I know that's the current pattern for mlp characters, but in my opinion, the names are unique enough to stand on their own.

Particularly when it comes to aliases. If hitch_trailblazer is a unique enough name, it doesn't need a suffix, and if it's not unique enough, it should be invalidated/disambiguated instead of aliased to a specific one.

bitwolfy said:
Do we really need _(mlp) suffixes for those names?
I know that's the current pattern for mlp characters, but in my opinion, the names are unique enough to stand on their own.

I do agree with you but I was following whatever the current precedent is.

If we did it this way, would it only be for the new g5 characters or will we have to go back and do it to potentially hundreds of friendship_is_magic characters too?

Rainbow Dash is a pretty unique name, yet it has a suffix as well. Long ago we decided it would just be easier for tagging and blacklisting that every mlp character would carry the suffix.

That said, do we want to continue doing so into generation 5? Bleh, looks like I'm going to need to clean up all the G5 tags regardless of what we decide here

rainbow_dash said:
Rainbow Dash is a pretty unique name, yet it has a suffix as well. Long ago we decided it would just be easier for tagging and blacklisting that every mlp character would carry the suffix.

How does adding the suffixes improve tagging/blacklisting? Surely someone who wants to blacklist will just throw in my_little_pony, and for tagging, the unique names should be unique enough that a tagger will realize whether they're using the right name.

strikerman said:
How does adding the suffixes improve tagging/blacklisting? Surely someone who wants to blacklist will just throw in my_little_pony, and for tagging, the unique names should be unique enough that a tagger will realize whether they're using the right name.

Yeah, if everything has a suffix, nothing is specific enough with it to help with blacklisting. My_little_pony is an easier blacklist term than *_(mlp). People who don't know about wildcards can use the former easily enough. Ponies can be blocked with my_little_pony equine so that the dragons and gryphons still show up and such as long as no pony is present (or my_little_pony -dragon -gryphon to allow those species to still show up anyways).

If it wouldn't be a headache and a half to set up, I'd make a BUR to remove the (mlp) suffix from (most of) the existing tags.

I agree with the implications but would rather get rid of the aliases.

I reiterate my long held position that suffixes are good and removing them adds nothing in terms of functionality.