The bulk update request #5631 has been rejected.

Reason: Implications for the new pokemon introduced in the Teal Mask DLC for Scarlet and Violet + gen 2 implication for unown.
Didn't add anything for Bloodmoon Ursaluna yet since only one particular Ursaluna has this form and probably should be a considered as a character similar to cosplay pikachu and spiky-eared pichu.

Edit: Removed the gen 2 implication for unown because it would add the gen 2 tag to !? unown which were introduced in gen 3.

Sources:
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/The_Teal_Mask
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Legendary_Pok%C3%A9mon
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Paradox_Pok%C3%A9mon
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Ursaluna_(Pok%C3%A9mon)
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_with_form_differences

EDIT: The bulk update request #5631 (forum #378187) has been rejected by @slyroon.

there are unown that originate from gen 4

sipothac said:
there are unown that originate from gen 4

Gen 3, actually, but the point stands: that implication used to exist, but was removed for a reason.

sipothac said:
there are unown that originate from gen 4

Even tho "A to Z" unown were introduced in gold and silver and "!?" were introduced in FireRed and LeafGreen, they all share the same Pokedex number, pattern and overall biology-style.

Not unlike how a cosplay pikachu with a unique appereance that was introduced in gen 6 is still tagged gen 1, a !? unown should be also still be tagged gen 2 in my subjective opinion.

consensualwind said:
Even tho "A to Z" unown were introduced in gold and silver and "!?" were introduced in FireRed and LeafGreen, they all share the same Pokedex number, pattern and overall biology-style.

Not unlike how a cosplay pikachu with a unique appereance that was introduced in gen 6 is still tagged gen 1, a !? unown should be also still be tagged gen 2 in my subjective opinion.

But I am also not super willing to die on this hill, if the unown is the only problem with the bur I can submit again without the unown part.

wat8548 said:
Gen 3, actually, but the point stands: that implication used to exist, but was removed for a reason.

really? I always thought they were introduced to go along with ball capsule seals.

consensualwind said:
But I am also not super willing to die on this hill, if the unown is the only problem with the bur I can submit again without the unown part.

You could also simply edit it (click "Edit" on the BUR page ).

wat8548 said:
You could also simply edit it (click "Edit" on the BUR page ).

Thanks! I didn't know that was a thing!

I'm sorry, but your tag implication has duplicates in my BUR from six months ago: topic #38184

The bulk update request #5631 (forum #378187) has been rejected by @slyroon.