The bulk update request #5196 has been rejected.

mass update chronormu_(warcraft) -> chromie_(warcraft)
mass update silithid_(species) -> silithid_(warcraft)
create implication garrosh_hellscream (373) -> warcraft (29018)
create implication hogger (44) -> warcraft (29018)
create implication death_knight_(warcraft) (96) -> warcraft (29018)
create implication demon_hunter_(warcraft) (91) -> warcraft (29018)
create implication adjutant (5) -> starcraft (669)
create implication larva_(starcraft) (9) -> zerg (473)
create implication mutalisk_(starcraft) (17) -> zerg (473)
create implication hydralisk_(starcraft) (81) -> zerg (473)
create implication tyrael_(diablo) (5) -> diablo (206)
create implication diablo_(character) (60) -> diablo (206)
create implication lilith_(diablo) (35) -> diablo (206)

Reason: I have several BUR suggestions (more than 25) so I'll be making a few threads. I've tried to use this post for what I hope are the least controversial.

Many of these are unnecessarily disambiguated or need implications to their franchise. Chromie and Chronormu are different names for the same character.

Edit: Rejecting to reorganize BURs into appropriate groups.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5196 (forum #370429) has been rejected by @Arkham_Horror.

arkham_horror said:
mass update chromie_(warcraft) -> chromie
mass update c'thun_(warcraft) -> c'thun
mass update g'huun_(warcraft) -> g'huun
mass update nozdormu_(warcraft) -> nozdormu
mass update silithid_(species) -> silithid
mass update mutalisk_(starcraft) -> mutalisk
mass update hydralisk_(starcraft) -> hydralisk
mass update tyrael_(diablo) -> tyrael

Again, I think it's best to keep these single-word tags suffixed, to avoid potential clashes. And silithid_(species) should probably be updated manually to silithid_(warcraft) or whatever it's from, there's only 4 posts.

arkham_horror said:
create implication infested_kerrigan (115) -> zerg (410)

infested_kerrigan is a character, which shouldn't implicate species.

watsit said:
Again, I think it's best to keep these single-word tags suffixed, to avoid potential clashes. And silithid_(species) should probably be updated manually to silithid_(warcraft) or whatever it's from, there's only 4 posts.

infested_kerrigan is a character, which shouldn't implicate species.

https://e621.net/posts?tags=infested_kerrigan+-zerg
https://e621.net/posts?tags=infested_kerrigan+-hybrid
Hmm, not all examples of her are human-zerg hybrids? I guess we have to allow for it in tagging/searching? I guess if someone needs it removed because of a counterexample...

I agree that it might not be a good idea to remove the _(*craft) suffix, but can't think of anyone else likely to name something "mutalisk" for example. XD

alphamule said:
I agree that it might not be a good idea to remove the _(*craft) suffix, but can't think of anyone else likely to name something "mutalisk" for example. XD

That was the logic I was originally following.

watsit said:
Again, I think it's best to keep these single-word tags suffixed, to avoid potential clashes.

Please give me some insight into your perspective. What makes these more likely to clash than other unique one-word tags like this one?

The bulk update request #5196 (forum #370429) has been rejected by @Arkham_Horror.

arkham_horror said:
Please give me some insight into your perspective. What makes these more likely to clash than other unique one-word tags like this one?

I don't know if these would be any more likely than that one. But I tend to be wary of single-word names in pop-fantasy and pop-scifi settings, since they're derived from real cultures and, being popular, are often replicated, increasing the chance of others creating confusingly similar names (even by accident). But there isn't really a thorough test you can do to determine if a single word name is at risk for clashing, it's just something you get your own sense for. To me those ones feel like they're worth keeping a suffix just in case, but someone else may disagree.