Implicating goodra -> pokemon.

Reason: Goodra is a type of pokemon.

ragswift said:
Implicating goodra -> pokemon.

Reason: Goodra is a type of pokemon.

NO!!! Don't implicate to aliased tag. It's our equivalent of goto. Implicate to pokémon instead.

ragswift said:
Implicating goodra -> pokemon.

Reason: Goodra is a type of pokemon.

Support.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
NO!!! Don't implicate to aliased tag. It's our equivalent of goto. Implicate to pokémon instead.

*baps on the head* Of course it's to the unaliased version with the accent, most people just don't bother with the silly accented character.

123easy said:
*baps on the head* Of course it's to the unaliased version with the accent, most people just don't bother with the silly accented character.

Problem is, it's in the implication suggestion page awaiting approval without that accent, which causes problems since it's a tag that is aliased to another tag.

The point Gilda was making was that they messed up using the system.

IMO this should not matter.

It was my understanding that aliases are supposed make life simpler, right? An alias or implication -target should automatically be resolved to to a tag with a non-zero number of posts in it.

Is it really problematic if we did something silly like

alias bewbs -> boobies 

Shouldn't/doesn't the system resolve the rightmost tag to breasts before an entry is created anyway?

Is this just so the ticket reads more consistently, Gilda?

ragswift said:
IMO this should not matter.

It was my understanding that aliases are supposed make life simpler, right? An alias or implication -target should automatically be resolved to to a tag with a non-zero number of posts in it.

Is it really problematic if we did something silly like

alias bewbs -> boobies 

Shouldn't/doesn't the system resolve the rightmost tag to breasts before an entry is created anyway?

Is this just so the ticket reads more consistently, Gilda?

It should not matter, however it actually does matter.
https://e621.net/forum/show/86837

Gotcha.

So this just means I should doublecheck I've linked an alias which is a root tag that actually has entries under it, yes (for implications because of the method of staging)? But aliasing a tag to another tag that's also an alias is okay, or is it?