Implicating lovelitchi → tamagotchi_(species)
Link to implication

Reason:

Lovelitchi is a tamagotchi, ergo: implication. As of now, "tamagotchi (species)" is not a tag, but is one I wish to suggest within this forum post.

Related Implications

• lovelitchi → tamagotchi (species)
• melodytchi → tamagotchi (species)
• pianitchi → tamagotchi (species)
• tamagotchi (species) → tamagotchi
• tamagotchi (toy) → tamagotchi

Related Aliases

• meloditchi → melodytchi¹

Related New Tag Suggestions

• tamagotchi (species). While we do have a tamagotchi copyright tag, we don't have a tag for the species as a whole. While most of the copyrirght tag is full of the species in itself, the tamagotchi (toy) tag involves the copyright but NOT the species, hence the suggestion for a separate species tag.

¹ The actual name of the species; the current tag is a common misspelling/wrong name.

EDIT: The tag implication lovelitchi -> tamagotchi_(species) (forum #240673) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

facelessmess said:
tamagotchi (species). While we do have a tamagotchi copyright tag, we don't have a tag for the species as a whole. While most of the copyright tag is full of the species in itself, the tamagotchi (toy) tag involves the copyright but NOT the species, hence the suggestion for a separate species tag.

The same could be said for Pokémon stuff.

BlueDingo said:
The same could be said for Pokémon stuff.

Each species has their own tag so it's not a similar problem.

Tho rly with that said, these species could just be implicated to the tamagotchi tag in itself and not have the proposed "tamagotchi species" tag, that could work as well, I was mainly thinking of possible future conflicts. But since it's a small tag, it perhaps might not be as big of a deal.

facelessmess said:
Each species has their own tag so it's not a similar problem.

Tho rly with that said, these species could just be implicated to the tamagotchi tag in itself and not have the proposed "tamagotchi species" tag, that could work as well, I was mainly thinking of possible future conflicts. But since it's a small tag, it perhaps might not be as big of a deal.

Actually, having a tamagotchi_(species) would be better, even if it does cover 99% of the content. Without it, there's no easy way to find Tamagotchi-related images that don't contain tamagotchi characters.

Same with Pokémon. Try finding a Pokémon image that doesn't contain any pokémon.

BlueDingo said:
Actually, having a tamagotchi_(species) would be better, even if it does cover 99% of the content. Without it, there's no easy way to find Tamagotchi-related images that don't contain tamagotchi characters.

Same with Pokémon. Try finding a Pokémon image that doesn't contain any pokémon.

Ah I see. Apologies, I interpreted your reply as disagreement. I do see where ur coming from tho, but regarding pokemon it might be more of a mess considering the sheer number when compared to smaller content like tamagotchi.

The tag implication lovelitchi -> tamagotchi_(species) (forum #240673) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.