The bulk update request #7708 is pending approval.

change category solo_cup (170) -> copyright

Reason: I don't know why the brand name is in general.

Seems it's somewhat ambiguous, referring to a singular hand-sized drinking container, and others that appear to be generic cups, so I think changing it to solo_cup_(brand) would help distinguish it.

Though I also think the tag shouldn't apply if it's not expressly branded as SOLO, or at least if the particular shape is trademarked (I don't know if it is, but it could be) and it's clearly discernible. I don't think the company has a monopoly on "plastic disposable party cups [...] usually are depicted in either red or blue, and have a circular rim that is wider than the base", but a number of posts apply it to generic-looking cups like that.

The bulk update request #7709 is pending approval.

create alias solo_cup (170) -> party_cup (0)
create implication party_cup (0) -> disposable_cup (508)

Reason: Consider this solution. Search amazon for "red party cups" and you'll see dozens of indistinguishable examples from many brands (and from no brand.) We shouldn't tag "kleenex" instead of "tissue" since most of the time the brand isn't going to be TWYS-able(and if it ever is... do we need separate tags for different brands of beer pong targets?)

There is no need to put this in the copyright category. Most of these cups are just random, generic party cups that happen to be red. This would clutter the copyright tags for something that really doesn't need it.