fate costume tags to chartags

BUR #6976 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

This changes the costume tags listed in fate/grand order into chartags. It does not touch the craft essences yet because I don't have the mental strength to tackle that.

Only controversial part I can see here is the jeanne alter one, but we already distinguish jeanne_d'arc_(alter_swimsuit_berserker)_(fate) from jeanne_d'arc_(alter)_(fate), so we'll have to revisit that too if we want to have a nested tree of implications.

If there are more costumes I missed please post them so I can add them, or if it's a lot just submit another similar BUR and I'll approve that too.

I don't think jeanne_d'arc_(wicked_dragon_witch_ver._shinjuku_1999)_(fate) should be completely distinguished from jeanne_d'arc_(alter)_(fate). Unlike Alter Swimsuit Berserker it's not even tried to market it as a different character, it's literally just Jalter in different clothes. It should implicate jeanne_d'arc_(alter)_(fate). and it should probably be jeanne_d'arc_(alter)_(wicked_dragon_witch_ver._shinjuku_1999)_(fate) but hahahaha oh god

And being honest, even the swimsuit version should also implicate Jalter, not just the Jeanne catchall, because it's not just "a different form of Jeanne", it's "a different form of Jalter". This raises the same issue with something like artoria_pendragon_(alter_swimsuit_rider)_(fate) being distinguished from saber_alter, or artoria_pendragon_(swimsuit_ruler)_(fate) being distinguished from artoria_pendragon_(lancer)_(fate).
To me, being "alternate versions of alternate versions", they should implicate more than just the general catch-all, they should implicate the alternate version they are derived from. Realistically speaking I don't think most people who search up jeanne_d'arc_(alter)_(fate) want to omit her swimsuit or her costumed version from their search results, seeing as (the costume especially) are the same character sporting different attires.

But anyway, even ignoring the swimsuit servants and the like, the [ACTUAL COSTUMES] should definitely implicate the variant they apply to, not just the catch all.

Well, @evazion said before he wants them to be a flat relationship, not a tree of implications, so I'm just going by his guidelines.

I agree that a flat relationship is the easiest and makes the most sense in most cases and, arguably, even for "variant of variant" servants like Swimsuit Jalter because TECHNICALLY it's treated as being a completely different character, but imo it makes no sense that an actual costume be detached from its wearer and only implicated to the general catch-all.

Well, I removed that costume from this BUR for now, to avoid having it blocked by a single tag.

I don't really like turning costumes into chartags. I genuinely think having a fifth category for outfits would solve a lot of problems (of course it will need a lot of effort at the beginning, but it will be worth it.)
The Fate tagging conundrum could be solved by just turning costume tags into gentags. Swimsuits are what fuck everything over.

Just as reference, topic #19427 has been opened up, which does the opposite of what this BUR is doing.

The bulk update request #6976 (forum #195594) has been approved by @nonamethanks.

Well, making another category is a much bigger change. What matters right now is that these tags should not be general.

BUR #7068 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

remove implication medb_(alluring_chief_warden_look) -> medb_(fate)_(all)
create implication medb_(alluring_chief_warden_look)_(fate) -> medb_(fate)_(all)

Fixing a small mistake.

The bulk update request #7068 (forum #195977) has been approved by @nonamethanks.