The bulk update request #5267 is active.

remove implication basculin (38) -> generation_5_pokemon (64553)
create implication white-striped_basculin (3) -> generation_8_pokemon (35699)

Reason: Red-striped Basculin and Blue-striped Basculin were introduced in Generation 5 and White-striped Basculin was introduced in Generation 8

Red-striped Basculin and Blue-striped Basculin can be found here

Basculin Part 1

EDIT: The bulk update request #5267 (forum #371803) has been approved by @slyroon.

joaobaiao777 said:
The bulk update request #5267 is active.

remove implication basculin (38) -> generation_5_pokemon (64553)
create implication white-striped_basculin (3) -> generation_8_pokemon (35699)

Reason: Red-striped Basculin and Blue-striped Basculin were introduced in Generation 5 and White-striped Basculin was introduced in Generation 8

red-striped_basculin already implies generation_5_pokemon through another implication (create implication red-striped_basculin -> generation_5_pokemon),
blue-striped_basculin already implies generation_5_pokemon through another implication (create implication blue-striped_basculin -> generation_5_pokemon)

More

why are you trying to remove the implication for basculin? i don't see the reason to why is that
if basculin were introduced to gen5 and the white one was introduced to gen8 then it should just imply the white to gen5 since white-striped_basculin is already implied to basculin and basculin already implied to gen5
both gens can coexist in the same tagging

unless i can be told otherwise

lilyanida said:
why are you trying to remove the implication for basculin? i don't see the reason to why is that
if basculin were introduced to gen5 and the white one was introduced to gen8 then it should just imply the white to gen5 since white-striped_basculin is already implied to basculin and basculin already implied to gen5
both gens can coexist in the same tagging

unless i can be told otherwise

White-striped basculin was not introduced in gen 5. Unimplying basculin from generation_5_pokemon makes sense since not all basculin forms are gen 5. Having white-striped basculin imply basculin imply generation_5_pokemon would cause a mistag since white-striped basculin isn't gen 5.

watsit said:
White-striped basculin was not introduced in gen 5. Unimplying basculin from generation_5_pokemon makes sense since not all basculin forms are gen 5. Having white-striped basculin imply basculin imply generation_5_pokemon would cause a mistag since white-striped basculin isn't gen 5.

Congrats you made me confused

lilyanida said:
why are you trying to remove the implication for basculin? i don't see the reason to why is that
if basculin were introduced to gen5 and the white one was introduced to gen8 then it should just imply the white to gen5 since white-striped_basculin is already implied to basculin and basculin already implied to gen5
both gens can coexist in the same tagging

unless i can be told otherwise

I'm planning to request an implication for the Generation 5 Basculin forms after this BUR is approved just like I did for the Unown BUR

bump

The bulk update request #5267 (forum #371803) has been approved by @slyroon.

@earlopain
There seems to be a residual implication even after it's been removed, and it's blocking the BUR
Try removing gen5pokemon (or previewing final tags) from white-striped_basculin

Edit: It seems to be fixed

The bulk update request #6559 is active.

create implication basculin (38) -> pokemon_(species) (513008)
create implication red-striped_basculin (29) -> generation_5_pokemon (64553)
create implication blue-striped_basculin (21) -> generation_5_pokemon (64553)

Reason: Red-striped Basculin and Blue-striped Basculin were introduced in Generation 5

Basculin Part 2

EDIT: The bulk update request #6559 (forum #390829) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6559 (forum #390829) has been approved by @slyroon.