The bulk update request #6304 is pending approval.

remove implication nature_background (10018) -> nature (23614)

Reason: nature wiki says "... Only for fully natural scenery. No elements such as fences or roads should be visible."

(nature_background currently doesn't have a wiki page.)

But some posts with nature_background tag have non-natural elements. Examples:

1) has bridge and structure that looks vaguely like a gazebo
post #4558229

2) same pool "Pool: Twink Fuzeyeen"
2a) bridge
post #4542032
2b) same bridge, but in background
post #4551762

(side-note: i think a hiking trail (or similar) should be allowed in posts tagged with nature)

3) one panel with house, one panel with Showbiz Pizza Place building
post #4538599

***
unsure of these:
a) hammocks , plus things overhead (to shield from rain?)
post #4551760 and child posts

b) throne
post #4550281

Didn't look at all nature_ground posts,
started with latest and got as far as post #4534236 ("Rating: Safe")
Time to drag myself off computer.

They're not aliased though? I suspect you would want to unimply the two

Though I wonder, should nature be less restrictive, or is it good with how it is currently.

Personally, I think nature should be aliased to nature_background (or vice-versa), since a nature_background will inherently have nature, and nature will always be part of the scene background. The current implication ensures nature isn't used how the wiki tries to define it as a strict nature-only scene.

snpthecat said:
They're not aliased though? I suspect you would want to unimply the two

Though I wonder, should nature be less restrictive, or is it good with how it is currently.

Thanks SNPtheCat for noticing my brainfail/brainfart/whatever,
I've fixed the BUR.