Requested feature overview description.

Similar to how [[tag]] and {{tag}} links to the Wiki tab and the Posts tab respectively, a format like <<tag>> that links to the Tags tab would be nice. This would be especially useful in combination with wildcards.

Example: <<*cum*>> -> https://e621.net/tag?name=*cum*&type=&order=count

Doesn't necessarily have to be used with <>, any other (common) symbol is fine.

Why would it be useful?

It omits "text":link formatting, and being able to link to a tag search in the Tags tab is useful for lists of aliases/implications that are quite similar or unfinished (like colors and objects used in many different ways (e.g. piercings)).

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?

DText.

Huge +1 from me

+1

Also I'm hesitant about using parentheses (round brackets) (( for this, it's unlikely people would actually do this but it might happen casually without thinking about this feature.

Chessax said:
+1

Also I'm hesitant about using parentheses (round brackets) (( for this, it's unlikely people would actually do this but it might happen casually without thinking about this feature.

I often use double parentheses (when you have to tell something extra (like so)), so I'm against that too.

I just think that the smaller and bigger than symbols (<>) will do, unless it has something to do with coding or something.

Hudson said:
I often use double parentheses (when you have to tell something extra (like so)), so I'm against that too.

I just think that the smaller and bigger than symbols (<>) will do, unless it has something to do with coding or something.

Well you'd have to literally type (( and )) and that's not too common (notice how you only typed )) but never ((). However I'm a frequent user of round brackets (even when maybe not appropriate) so the following would not be impossible:

Meaning you would get:

incidentally) it's a non sequitur (does not follow

However, this could easily be solved by not allowing whitespace between the markers.

and >> might be used for emoticons so I'm hesitant with that too :P, however I'd like to use it if possible, but it might be easier with parentheses in combination with whitespace checks.

Chessax said:
<< and >> might be used for emoticons so I'm hesitant with that too :P

You just said that you'd have to type both of them, like (( and )). I couldn't see any emoticons looking like <<:)>> or something.

Hudson said:
You just said that you'd have to type both of them, like (( and )). I couldn't see any emoticons looking like <<:)>> or something.

Yeah, that's probably true. I guess it's just a matter of taste then, unless we want to use something more obscure like «tag» or ‹tag› (-1 from me so I don't know why I'm suggesting these...)