The bulk update request #20045 (forum #254801) has been approved by @evazion.
Posted under Tags
The bulk update request #20045 (forum #254801) has been approved by @evazion.
BUR #20194 has been approved by @evazion.
create implication quercus_(the_bard's_tale)_(arknights) -> quercus_(arknights)
create implication vigil_(the_other_side_of_siracusa)_(arknights) -> vigil_(arknights)
Last 2 new skins.
The bulk update request #20194 (forum #255548) has been approved by @evazion.
BUR #20457 has been approved by @evazion.
create implication astgenne_(her_aspiration)_(arknights) -> astgenne_(arknights)
Missing implication.
The bulk update request #20457 (forum #256914) has been approved by @evazion.
BUR #20486 has been approved by @evazion.
create implication texas_the_omertosa_(wingbreaker)_(arknights) -> texas_the_omertosa_(arknights)
New skin
BUR #20488 has been rejected.
rename arturia_(arknights) -> virtuosa_(arknights)
create implication mlynar_(wdali)_(arknights) -> mlynar_(arknights)
create implication bagpipe_(royal)_(arknights) -> bagpipe_(arknights)
1. Arturia has become a playable character and this is her operator name.
2-3. New skins.
The bulk update request #20486 (forum #257051) has been approved by @evazion.
Cinnamon_Toast said:
BUR #20488 has been rejected.
rename arturia_(arknights) -> virtuosa_(arknights)
create implication mlynar_(wdali)_(arknights) -> mlynar_(arknights)
create implication bagpipe_(royal)_(arknights) -> bagpipe_(arknights)1. Arturia has become a playable character and this is her operator name.
2-3. New skins.
Don't put an unrelated rename in with costume implications. Someone made a separate BUR for Arturia (arknights) in forum #257068 and now the question is whether it should be an alias or a rename. (The answer is that it tag moves should always be an alias unless the old tag is too ambiguous to keep as an alias).
The bulk update request #20488 (forum #257057) has been rejected by @evazion.
BUR #20493 has been approved by @evazion.
create implication mlynar_(wdali)_(arknights) -> mlynar_(arknights)
create implication bagpipe_(royal)_(arknights) -> bagpipe_(arknights)
As above.
The bulk update request #20493 (forum #257080) has been approved by @evazion.
BUR #20955 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
create implication ashlock_(lances_of_the_kaliska)_(arknights) -> ashlock_(arknights)
Semi-recent skin that didn't have uploads until now.
BUR #20957 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
create implication absinthe_(noon_twilight)_(arknights) -> absinthe_(arknights)
Same as Login to view said (I was waiting for art of Ashlock's skin to be uploaded).
The bulk update request #20955 (forum #258827) has been approved by @nonamethanks.
The bulk update request #20957 (forum #258841) has been approved by @nonamethanks.
BUR #21011 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
create implication angelina_(endfield)_(arknights) -> angelina_(arknights)
Angelina but in Arknights Endfield.
Astolfo said:
BUR #21011 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
create implication angelina_(endfield)_(arknights) -> angelina_(arknights)
Angelina but in Arknights Endfield.
According to lore she's a different character, a sort of clone of Arknights' Angelina?
CN tl so take it with a massive grain of salt.
Updated
Login_to_view said:
According to lore she's a different character, a sort of clone of Arknights' Angelina?
CN tl so take it with a massive grain of salt.
Angelina in Endfield and reg. Arknights has the same name and looks pretty much exactly identical save for the outfit. Even with the lore background in mind, I think it'd be silly not to have the implication. Making the distinction by giving the Endfield one its own tag, of course, but for all intents and purposes they are the same character. Especially when the lore distinction is that one is a clone of the other... It's hardly even a different character, it's literally a copy of the same character
This would be like not tagging primordial albedo with albedo_(genshin_impact) or not tagging Kingu_(Fate) with Enkidu_(Fate).
Updated