The bulk update request #7966 is pending approval.

Reason: As of right now there are quite a bit of games that aren't included in the final_fantasy tag this BUR seeks to ensure all the game tags are implied towards final_fantasy.
Also creating an alias for final_fantasy_iii_ds to final_fantasy_iii_3d_remake as this is what it's now called.

rakustrike said:
create implication final_fantasy_xii_revenant_wings (2) -> final_fantasy_xii (440)
create implication final_fantasy_xiii-2 (11) -> final_fantasy_xiii (78)
create implication final_fantasy_x-2 (17) -> final_fantasy_x (522)
create implication final_fantasy_vii_advent_children (3) -> final_fantasy_vii (1636)
create implication final_fantasy_iv_the_after_years (1) -> final_fantasy_iv (44)
create implication final_fantasy_dimensions_ii (2) -> final_fantasy_dimensions (1)
create implication final_fantasy_tactics_a2:_grimoire_of_the_rift (2) -> final_fantasy_tactics (411)

These are separate media, which either should be kept separate for being distinct, or aliased for being similar enough to not warrant separate tags. X-2 is a sequel to X, which would make that implication like having FF2 implicate FF1, for example. Same for XIII and XIII-2. Advent Children in a movie continuation of VII, putting in the same boat. Revenant Wings is also described as a sequel to XII.

watsit said:
These are separate media, which either should be kept separate for being distinct, or aliased for being similar enough to not warrant separate tags. X-2 is a sequel to X, which would make that implication like having FF2 implicate FF1, for example. Same for XIII and XIII-2. Advent Children in a movie continuation of VII, putting in the same boat. Revenant Wings is also described as a sequel to XII.

I'll admit I'm not 100% game on the final fantasy timeline but how I understand it is that each new number is a separate game from the predecessor and if it got another title/number it's a sequel to said game, like:
Final Fantasy X -> Final Fantasy X-2 Final fantasy XIV -> Heavensward -> Stormblood -> Shadowbringers -> Endwalker -> Dawntrail <- all expansions/sequels are all connected together and are implied towards XIV as it stands right now on e621
Final Fantasy XV <- separate game with little to no reference to XIV or any other FF game.

I don't mind keeping/removing expansions/sequels tags mind you, just added them for continuity based on FFXIV tag grouping.
Personally my opinion is that different media shouldn't technically matter in the context of images/lore if it's canon it's canon.
However we could do:
alias final_fantasy_vii_advent_children -> final_fantasy_vii_advent_children_(movie) if needed I suppose.

rakustrike said:
I'll admit I'm not 100% game on the final fantasy timeline but I how I understand it is that each new number is a separate game from the predecessor and if it got another title/number it's a sequel to said game, like:
Final Fantasy X -> Final Fantasy X-2 Final fantasy XIV -> Heavensward -> Stormblood -> Shadowbringers -> Endwalker -> Dawntrail <- all expansions/sequels are all connected together and are implied towards XIV as it stands right now on e621
Final Fantasy XV <- separate game with little to no reference to XIV or any other FF game.

I wouldn't call the XIV expansions "sequels", as they're basically extra/more content for XIV. They're still part of XIV, in the same way that Skyrim's Dawnguard and Dragonborn DLC/expansions are still Skyrim. FF X-2, in contrast, is a separate game from FF X, but happens to follow the same continuity or timeline. I don't know X-2 enough to say how distinguishable it is from X, but the typical rules for sequels should apply: if X-2 is similar enough to X that distinguishing them is difficult, impossible, or pointless, it shouldn't get it's own tag, or if X and X-2 are distinct enough to have separate tags, they shouldn't get mixed up. People searching for content for the first FF X game shouldn't get results for it's sequel FF X-2. A better analogy I guess would be like having dragon_quest_2 imply dragon_quest_1. People searching dragon_quest_1 (final_fantasy_x) shouldn't get results for dragon_quest_2 (final_fantasy_x-2), unless the post contains both of course.

rakustrike said:
However we could do:
alias final_fantasy_vii_advent_children -> final_fantasy_vii_advent_children_(movie) if needed I suppose.

I don't think that's necessary since it's not ambiguous. But content tagged for final_fantasy_vii_advent_children (the sequel-movie) shouldn't get mixed up with final_fantasy_vii (the original game), as they're separate media with their own distinguishing characteristics.

watsit said:
I wouldn't call the XIV expansions "sequels", as they're basically extra/more content for XIV. They're still part of XIV, in the same way that Skyrim's Dawnguard and Dragonborn DLC/expansions are still Skyrim.

I would say they are because they "expand" the main story of XIV (with the first arc being finished in EW) like a sequel would even if it's merely an expansion.
Dawnguard and Dargonborn DLC/expansions are separate from the main story afaik and is more like "extra filler content".

But I can understand your perspective here.

watsit said:
FF X-2, in contrast, is a separate game from FF X, but happens to follow the same continuity or timeline. I don't know X-2 enough to say how distinguishable it is from X, but the typical rules for sequels should apply: if X-2 is similar enough to X that distinguishing them is difficult, impossible, or pointless, it shouldn't get it's own tag, or if X and X-2 are distinct enough to have separate tags, they shouldn't get mixed up. People searching for content for the first FF X game shouldn't get results for it's sequel FF X-2. A better analogy I guess would be like having dragon_quest_2 imply dragon_quest_1. People searching dragon_quest_1 (final_fantasy_x) shouldn't get results for dragon_quest_2 (final_fantasy_x-2), unless the post contains both of course.

I would say it gets a bit dicey here, on the one hand if X-2 is a continuation of FFX then technically it would fit the same definition as a FFXIV expansion as they too continue the FFXIV story.
However if Square Enix merely added a 2 to FFX to make it sound fancy/or to just use the characters but otherwise has nothing in common (different/new story) then I would agree.

The issue with the dragon quest example is that this is more akin to:

⠀
In other words, they are almost completely separate games with only the gameplay, the world or certain references to characters.
Which I don't know is the case with Final Fantasy X-2, it could also be:
Fallout 1 -> Fallout 2
⠀
Where Fallout 2 is a direct sequel to Fallout 1, sharing characters/creatures and story the first game.

So TL;DR of my point is; if Final Fantasy X and X-2 is completely different stories then I agree we 100% should remove said implication, but if it's simply a continuation from Final Fantasy X story and X-2 has certain similar creatures/characters/etc. from Final Fantasy X in X-2 then wouldn't it make sense to have Final Fantasy X-2 imply Final Fantasy X?

watsit said:
I don't think that's necessary since it's not ambiguous. But content tagged for final_fantasy_vii_advent_children (the sequel-movie) shouldn't get mixed up with final_fantasy_vii (the original game), as they're separate media with their own distinguishing characteristics.

Distinguishing characteristics as in that the movie is a totally different telling of the story (similar to say... Deus Ex and it's sequel Invisible war having very little in common?) or merely the media?
Since if there are clear continuations from VII to VII: Advent Children again I feel we then cross into the same issue with X vs X-2.

Note: I hope I don't come off as combative here, genuinely trying to just be thorough with how to proceed with what should be in the BUR and what shouldn't. :)

rakustrike said:
I would say they are because they "expand" the main story of XIV (with the first arc being finished in EW) like a sequel would even if it's merely an expansion.
Dawnguard and Dargonborn DLC/expansions are separate from the main story afaik and is more like "extra filler content".

The Dawnguard and Dragonborn DLC do work with the main story, particularly Dragonborn, as it deals with you being the Dragonborn. There's different dialog at points within them depending on how far along you are in the main quest at the time.

rakustrike said:
I would say it gets a bit dicey here, on the one hand if X-2 is a continuation of FFX then technically it would fit the same definition as a FFXIV expansion as they too continue the FFXIV story.
However if Square Enix merely added a 2 to FFX to make it sound fancy/or to just use the characters but otherwise has nothing in common (different/new story) then I would agree.

I don't think it being a story continuation should be what counts. If you're playing FF X-2, you're not playing FF X, so searching for FF X content shouldn't give results for FF X-2 content. In contrast, if you're playing the Stormblood expansion, you are playing FF XIV, so searching for FF XIV content should result in Stormblood content.

rakustrike said:
The issue with the dragon quest example is that this is more akin to:

Dragon Quest 1 -> Dragon Quest 2 = The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion -> The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim

The first three Dragon Quest games are a bit more tied together than that, I think. You can go to the original DQ1 land in DQ2 (slightly modified and shrunk due to NES memory limitations, but it's still there), and even meet some descendants of the first game's characters. There are a couple twists in DQ3 that are very relevant to DQ1. DQ1, 2, and 3 are collectively known as the "Erdrick trilogy" (or "Loto trilogiy"), due to their story connection through the legendary hero Erdrick/Loto. They're not direct sequels in as far as DQ2 picking up where DQ1 left off and continuing the same story, but they're not as independent as TES games normally are.

rakustrike said:
So TL;DR of my point is; if Final Fantasy X and X-2 is completely different stories then I agree we 100% should remove said implication, but if it's simply a continuation from Final Fantasy X story and X-2 has certain similar creatures/characters/etc. from Final Fantasy X in X-2 then wouldn't it make sense to have Final Fantasy X-2 imply Final Fantasy X?

I don't think so, since X and X-2 are separate games. I don't think the games' story connection (or lack thereof) should be a reason to have them implicate each other, especially since a game's story can be open to interpretation and/or retcons.

watsit said:
The Dawnguard and Dragonborn DLC do work with the main story, particularly Dragonborn, as it deals with you being the Dragonborn. There's different dialog at points within them depending on how far along you are in the main quest at the time.

I don't think it being a story continuation should be what counts. If you're playing FF X-2, you're not playing FF X, so searching for FF X content shouldn't give results for FF X-2 content. In contrast, if you're playing the Stormblood expansion, you are playing FF XIV, so searching for FF XIV content should result in Stormblood content.

The first three Dragon Quest games are a bit more tied together than that, I think. You can go to the original DQ1 land in DQ2 (slightly modified and shrunk due to NES memory limitations, but it's still there), and even meet some descendants of the first game's characters. There are a couple twists in DQ3 that are very relevant to DQ1. DQ1, 2, and 3 are collectively known as the "Erdrick trilogy" (or "Loto trilogiy"), due to their story connection through the legendary hero Erdrick/Loto. They're not direct sequels in as far as DQ2 picking up where DQ1 left off and continuing the same story, but they're not as independent as TES games normally are.

I don't think so, since X and X-2 are separate games. I don't think the games' story connection (or lack thereof) should be a reason to have them implicate each other, especially since a game's story can be open to interpretation and/or retcons.

One last question then before I make them imply final_fantasy instead, do we know how other copyrights are handled with sequels are they typically handled with imply 1 -> 2 or imply 1 -> <copyright name>?

Edit: https://e621.net/tag_implications?commit=Search&search%5Bname_matches%5D=dragon_quest it seems they just follow the ladder so I'll change the BUR to fit.