Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The bulk update request #2494 is pending approval.
remove implication pinkamena_(mlp) (2831) -> pinkie_pie_(mlp) (25569)
create alias pinkamena_diane_pie (0) -> pinkamena_(mlp) (2831)
Reason: The site has already established that one form should not be duplex tagged, such as the mega evolutions from pokemon or pirate_tawna/tawna_bandicoot. Making the fact this implicates the other invalid. The second is just duplex tagging.
versperus said:
The bulk update request #2494 is pending approval.remove implication pinkamena_(mlp) (2831) -> pinkie_pie_(mlp) (25569)
create alias pinkamena_diane_pie (0) -> pinkamena_(mlp) (2831)Reason: The site has already established that one form should not be duplex tagged, such as the mega evolutions from pokemon or pirate_tawna/tawna_bandicoot. Making the fact this implicates the other invalid. The second is just duplex tagging.
In the Crash Bandicoot games, Pirate Tawna could be considered canonically a distinctly separate character from Regular Tawna, as she is from a different universe. Pinkamena, on the other hand, is just "Pinkie Pie but sad/crazy", or for a lot of fanart, just "Pinkie Pie but with straight hair", not a different character.
For Pokemon, Mega Evolutions are treated as regular evolutions and get separate species tags, but "forms" are treated differently. The three types of Lycanroc all implicate the lycanroc tag, as do all the Rotoms. The regional variants are treated as separate species, but personally, I would have them implicate their parent species, as if they were breeds of a real-life species, with a new tag for the base version. E.g. kantonian_meowth, alolan_meowth and galarian_meowth all implicating meowth.
