Topic: (Updated) Warrior cats character implications BUR

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

The bulk update request #4026 is active.

create implication whitestorm_(warriors) (32) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication stormtail_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication bumblestripe_(warriors) (7) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication bayshine_(warriors) (6) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication nightheart_(warriors) (16) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication hoot_(warriors) (3) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication jumper_(warriors) (3) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication harestar_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication sorreltail_(warriors) (9) -> warriors_(cats) (0)

Reason: Making characters from Warrior Cats imply their IP. This series has a ton of characters.

EDIT: The bulk update request #4026 (forum #356239) has been approved by @gattonero2001.

Updated

The bulk update request #4072 is active.

create implication violetshine_(warriors) (18) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication swiftpaw_(warriors) (31) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication ferncloud_(warriors) (20) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication daisy_(warriors) (3) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication twigbranch_(warriors) (13) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication birchface_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication midnight_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication brambleberry_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication needletail_(warriors) (5) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication alderheart_(warriors) (20) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication ruby_(warriors) (3) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication socks_(warriors) (3) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication dustpelt_(warriors) (22) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication blossomfall_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication hollytuft_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication sharptooth_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication honeyfern_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication leopardfoot_(warriors) (3) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication pinestar_(warriors) (3) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication finleap_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication mosspaw_(warriors) (0) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication volewhisper_(warriors) (4) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication badgerfang_(warriors) (3) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication rowanstar_(warriors) (3) -> warriors_(cats) (0)
create implication fallen_leaves_(warriors) (3) -> warriors_(cats) (0)

Reason: Found a few more characters that need to imply their IP

EDIT: The bulk update request #4072 (forum #356695) has been approved by @furrypickle.

Updated by auto moderator

The bulk update request #5339 is active.

create implication littlecloud_(warriors) (3) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication sharpclaw_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication sootfur_(warriors) (3) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication toadstep_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication molewhisker_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication millie_(warriors) (4) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication birchfall_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication stonefur_(warriors) (6) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication barkface_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication marigoldkit_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication purdy_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication clawface_(warriors) (3) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication snowtuft_(warriors) (7) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication frostfur_(warriors) (6) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication halftail_(warriors) (7) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication smallear_(warriors) (8) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication speckletail_(warriors) (6) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication rainwhisker_(warriors) (3) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication whitethroat_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication thrushpelt_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication cherryfall_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication dappletail_(warriors) (6) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication foxleap_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication icecloud_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication mistlekit_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)

Reason: More characters

EDIT: The bulk update request #5339 (forum #372916) has failed: Error: Consequent tag must not be aliased to another tag (create implication littlecloud_(warriors) -> warriors_(cats))

EDIT: The bulk update request #5339 (forum #372916) has been approved by @slyroon.

Updated by auto moderator

The bulk update request #5353 has been rejected.

remove implication mapleflame_(warriors) (0) -> warriors_(cats) (0)

Reason: This is a fan character, there is no canon character in Warriors named Mapleflame. I've changed the tag to mapleflame_(mapleflame54) in line with how we do OC tags.

Are fan characters allowed to imply the series they're based on? I honestly forget. Regardless, this character needs to have the owner as the suffix iirc

EDIT: The bulk update request #5353 (forum #373204) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Updated by auto moderator

Watsit

Privileged

cloudpie said:
Are fan characters are allowed to imply the series they're based on? I honestly forget.

I don't think they should. It's possible to depict a fan character outside of the series they were originally created as a fan of, and if there's no remaining visual indication of the series, the series tag shouldn't be applied.

The bulk update request #5363 is active.

create implication moonflower_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication patchpelt_(warriors) (4) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication poppydawn_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication rippleclaw_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication russetfur_(warriors) (4) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication stonepelt_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication sunstar_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication thunder_(warriors) (0) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication whitewing_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication beetail_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication brightsky_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication brook_where_small_fish_swim_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication cedarpelt_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication daisyheart_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication dawnbright_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication dewnose_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication dodge_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication duke_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication eaglekit_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication egg_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication floss_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication flowerstar_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication harrybrook_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication hazeltail_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication jacques_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)

Reason: Even more

So one issue with warrior cats characters is that occasionally there are multiple canon characters in this series with the same name. The warrior cats wiki gives them clan or arc suffixes but that might be a little awkward for e6. I'm really not sure what to do about that. It doesn't affect this BUR in particular though.

Like for example, tigerheart_(warriors) became a clan leader in a recent arc and his name changed to Tigerstar. But there's another tigerstar_(warriors) (formerly Tigerclaw) already.
Another example: post #4211871 contains both RiverClan Pouncetail) and ShadowClan Pouncetail.) I just tagged pouncetail_(warriors) as a placeholder, but those will eventually both need their own tags.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5363 (forum #373420) has been approved by @slyroon.

Updated by auto moderator

The bulk update request #5364 is active.

create implication jay_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication jingo_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication mistcloud_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication mistystar_(warriors) (9) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication mousewhisker_(warriors) (2) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication primrosepaw_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication runningnose_(warriors) (4) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication sedgecreek_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication sheer_path_beside_waterfall_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication slash_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication slatefur_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication smokehaze_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication smoky_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication snake_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication sneezecloud_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)
create implication splash_(warriors) (1) -> warriors_(book_series) (2467)

Reason: Warriors has over 1300 characters guys

EDIT: The bulk update request #5364 (forum #373425) has been approved by @slyroon.

Updated by auto moderator

  • 1