The bulk update request #7440 is pending approval.

create implication circlet (1920) -> jewelry (218785)
create implication chain_jewelry (681) -> jewelry (218785)
create implication chain_jewelry (681) -> chain (32934)
create implication belly_chain (245) -> chain_jewelry (681)
create implication armlet (5111) -> jewelry (218785)
create implication cuff_links (647) -> jewelry (218785)
create implication brooch (778) -> jewelry (218785)
create implication medallion (523) -> jewelry (218785)
create implication body_jewelry (179) -> jewelry (218785)
create implication globus_cruciger (2) -> jewelry (218785)
create implication charm_(jewelry) (101) -> jewelry (218785)
create implication usekh (568) -> jewelry (218785)
create implication pectoral_(jewelry) (169) -> jewelry (218785)
create implication grill_(jewelry) (2) -> jewelry (218785)

Reason: Some types of jewelry that should imply jewelry.

The bulk update request #7441 has been rejected.

create implication ring_(jewelry) (6347) -> jewelry (218785)
create implication ring_(jewelry) (6347) -> ring (27129)
remove implication digit_ring (9241) -> jewelry (218785)
create implication digit_ring (9241) -> ring_(jewelry) (6347)
create implication neck_ring (1258) -> ring_(jewelry) (6347)
remove implication tail_ring (5418) -> ring (27129)
create implication tail_ring (5418) -> ring_(jewelry) (6347)
create implication torc (47) -> neck_ring (1258)

Reason: Specifically handling ring_(jewelry).

EDIT: The bulk update request #7441 (forum #399785) has been rejected by @Nimphia.

nimphia said:
Reason: Specifically handling ring_(jewelry).

Think we should remove all implications for ring because it's redundant. It's high time that ring gets tossed into the shadow realm and be disambiguated (see topic #18367 & topic #28289).

The bulk update request #7441 (forum #399785) has been rejected by @Nimphia.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Think we should remove all implications for ring because it's redundant. It's high time that ring gets tossed into the shadow realm and be disambiguated (see topic #18367 & topic #28289).

Rejecting the ring one for now, then, I agree with disambiguation.

nimphia said:
Rejecting the ring one for now, then, I agree with disambiguation.

You didn't need to reject the whole BUR, just edit and remove the ring implications.
But since you already did that, we can start with removing the existing implications currently attached to ring (i.e., toe_ring, wedding_ring, scarab_ring, glistening_ring, tail_ring) and imply them to ring_(jewelry).

The bulk update request #7449 is pending approval.

remove implication toe_ring (4579) -> ring (27129)
remove implication wedding_ring (3173) -> ring (27129)
remove implication scarab_ring (0) -> ring (27129)
remove implication glistening_ring (45) -> ring (27129)
remove implication tail_ring (5418) -> ring (27129)
create implication ring_(jewelry) (6347) -> jewelry (218785)
create implication digit_ring (9241) -> ring_(jewelry) (6347)
create implication scarab_ring (0) -> ring_(jewelry) (6347)
create implication glistening_ring (45) -> ring_(jewelry) (6347)
create implication tail_ring (5418) -> ring_(jewelry) (6347)
create implication hair_ring (653) -> ring_(jewelry) (6347)
create implication tentacle_ring (82) -> ring_(jewelry) (6347)
create implication neck_ring (1258) -> ring_(jewelry) (6347)
create implication torc (47) -> neck_ring (1258)

Reason: Revised version of above per Wolfgang's suggestion. Preparing to disambiguate ring and imply jewelry rings to ring_(jewelry) instead.