Removing implications:
princess_molestia -/> princess_celestia_(mlp)
pinkamena_(mlp) -/> pinkie_pie_(mlp)

Reason:
These implications are bad and you should feel bad.
They are bad even if you, for some reason, believe that molestia and pinkamena are actually valid tags.

These are the only two character tags that imply other character tag that is not umbrella tag like fan_character. This alone is just stupid, but there's more. With this implication you can't efficiently search for picture with both pinkamena and pinkie pie. Same problem was with mega_evolution tags (see forum #154877) and lead to removal of implications.
Another problem is that even though both of them are fan characters they imply fim tag through implication which breaks whole idea of distinction between fim and mlp tag. I also have no idea why only one of these characters is implied to fan_character and doesn't have mlp suffix.

People who see both tags as valid tags have limited search because of this implications.
People who doesn't, like me, just thinks that this is ridiculous. If you want to pretend that these two are separate characters that deserve their own tags then don't implicate them to valid tags.

Oh boy, this can of worms.
I think this has been brought up at least twice, and it has started a shitstorm both times.
I'll try and find the threads, but IIRC this issue was brought up in the Flutterbat threads, or whatever the Fluttershy fan-character were named.
As for the *implication removals, +1.

I know and I'm not asking for removal of tags themselves yet. I just said that even if they are valid the implications are not helping at all.

Granberia said:
I know and I'm not asking for removal of tags themselves yet. I just said that even if they are valid the implications are not helping at all.

Meant the implication removals. My bad.

Pinkamena is part of pinkie pie's full name: Pinkamena Diane Pie. though she's more often referred to by that name when shes sad or her mane is otherwise hanging straight and limp. not really a fan character so much as alter ego or different personality.

molestia on the other hand was a fan character based on celestia in a tumblr blog that has since been removed though you can probably find all the pics somewhere here or i think there was a gallery of the over at g.e-hentai but i'm not sure if it's still there as i haven't seen anything molestia related in quite a while.

molestia could probably be moved and be implicated as a fan_character but pinkamena is probably fine as is seeing as it's part of her full name. well, that's my opinion at least.

treos said:
Pinkamena is part of pinkie pie's full name: Pinkamena Diane Pie. though she's more often referred to by that name when shes sad or her mane is otherwise hanging straight and limp. not really a fan character so much as alter ego or different personality.

Well, that's certainly not the definition that is supposed to be used here. Wiki states:

An earth pony from the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic series. Pinkamena is pink with straight, pink hair and light blue eyes, often slightly parted or off center. The polar opposite of her normal self, Pinkie Pie, she is mostly found depicted in depressing or sadistic manners, as implied by her personality. Most notable aspects include her straightened hair, insane grin and muscle spasms.

However this is quantum definition and just my own act of seeing it made it change so after I removed tag from
post #192209
that doesn't show any character traits the tag was restored by an admin. I don't know enough about quantum physics to use this tag properly. :(

This is being discussed in committee, just awaiting the word from a couple who are offline atm. I will plan to share mine and the others' thoughts on this then.

Granberia said:
stuff

dude...

"The polar opposite of her normal self, Pinkie Pie, she is mostly found depicted in depressing or sadistic manners, as implied by her personality. Most notable aspects include her straightened hair, insane grin and muscle spasms."

it says it right there, pinkamena and pinkie pie are the same person. see Party of one in particular, the "Creepytown" section.

it just happens that shes more often referred to as pinkamena when shes in that dark moody state rather than pinkie pie who is eternally happy and cheerful. same character, 2 different personalities.

i don't know what your getting at with that quantum definition stuff. this has nothing to do with quantum physics.

treos said:

i don't know what your getting at with that quantum definition stuff. this has nothing to do with quantum physics.

Dat moon_train_(?) tag though.

parasprite said:
Dat moon_train_(?) tag though.

o.O

treos said:
dude...

"The polar opposite of her normal self, Pinkie Pie, she is mostly found depicted in depressing or sadistic manners, as implied by her personality. Most notable aspects include her straightened hair, insane grin and muscle spasms."

it says it right there, pinkamena and pinkie pie are the same person. see Party of one in particular, the "Creepytown" section.

it just happens that shes more often referred to as pinkamena when shes in that dark moody state rather than pinkie pie who is eternally happy and cheerful. same character, 2 different personalities.

i don't know what your getting at with that quantum definition stuff. this has nothing to do with quantum physics.

"Quantum definition" means that when I started to retag images to make sure that they fit the wiki definition, which was quoted by lead admin as a reason why tag stays, and then it turned out that this is not exact definition and should not be used. Therefore pinkamena tag is in two states at the same time:
1. It's "The polar opposite of her normal self"
2. It's just pinkie_pie straight_hair
And the correct state is only decided when an admin look at certain pic. If that's not quantum physics then I don't know what it is.

not trying to offend or sound rude or anything, just pointing this out is all.

Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics, or quantum theory) is a fundamental branch of physics which describes physical phenomena at scales typical of the quantum realm of atomic and subatomic length scales, where the action is on the order of the Planck constant.

split or alternate personality would be psychology.

After discussing it with the others, the unimplication is denied. We haven't been able to find any issues or confusion about how the current implications work, and deleting them is likely to bring up new tagging conflicts. There's no confusion with how these characters are tagged and removing them with the goal of not having to look at as many brony tags is not a good enough reason to alias it away.

I know these weren't exactly discussed in this thread, but I wanted to go over these as well:

• Alias: pinkamena_(mlp) -> pinkie_pie_(mlp) (denied) - This would hinder our ability to search for this, and alternate tags like nightmare_fuel, straight_hair, psycho, and crazy aren't consistent enough to be a reliable replacement.
• Alias: princess_molestia -> princess_celestia_(mlp) (denied) - For the same reasons above. She's a John Joseco character and there's not a whole lot of new posts coming in anyways. Removing the implication/aliasing it doesn't accomplish anything.
• Implication: pinkamena_(mlp) -> fan_character (denied) - Besides bordering on being a fan character, the character doesn't really belong in there, and the implication would swamp the tag with Pinkie Pies.
• Implication: flutterbat_(mlp) -> fan_character (denied) - It's not a fan character.
• Alias: flutterbat_(mlp) -> bat_pony/fluttershy_(mlp) (denied) - It's distinct, it's canon, and it hasn't proven to be disruptive to tagging.

Other thoughts:

I don't personally care that much about MLP fan characters getting the friendship_is_magic tag (that is as long as they are FiM-style ponies) but this is not how we currently tag them. From what I understand, it was originally done mainly to distinguish non-canon from canon (as well as pre-G4 from G4). However, now that the fan_character tag is well-established, I believe this rule has largely outlived its usefulness, and has been creating a lot of unnecessary work for taggers, particularly with the periodic cleanups that need to be done in order to maintain it.

Therefore I feel that this rule should be dropped, and instead favor different tags to make distinctions where necessary. We still lack a consistent way to handle pre-g4 ponies, but (brony fandom aside), there are enough of these postson here to justify standardizing them.

• my_little_pony
• my_little_pony_(g1)
• applejack_(g1)
• surprise_(g1)
• wind_whistler_(g1)
• my_little_pony_(g3)
• pinkie_pie_(g3)
• rainbow_dash_(g3)
• surprise_(g3)
• and so on...

Even if a couple of these have multiples of the same character tags, this should be more than enough to distinguish these. With this there will be ambiguous cases (a G4-style Surprise for instance), but we may be able to minimize it with something like this instead:

• my_little_pony
• my_little_pony_(oldgen), my_little_pony_(og), etc.
• <oldgen characters go here>

The downside is that we don't have as much distinction between generations, but I doubt it will be much of an issue for us in the long run (or at least better than not having them at all).

After discussing it with the others, the unimplication is denied. We haven't been able to find any issues or confusion about how the current implications work, and deleting them is likely to bring up new tagging conflicts.

I clearly mention reason in the first post. This main reason was enough to remove implications from mega_<pokemon> to <pokemon>. Yet you guys didn't even mention this reason in "other thoughts", only mentioning something I said is "the other problem". Not only that, but you don't even say what "new tagging conflicts" (different then those people have to face after removing mega_<pokemon> implications) it's going to bring. Moreover:

There's no confusion with how these characters are tagged and removing them with the goal of not having to look at as many brony tags is not a good enough reason to alias it away.

Did you at least read what I've written in this thread or did you just read title, though "Oh no, it's this anti-brony asshole again.", and make an answer without even looking at thread. This is not about aliasing those tags. This is only about removing implications. I said it multiple times that this is not about validity of the tags, and yet I have to read this sentence.

Alright, I'll go over your post in more detail then

Granberia said:
These implications are bad and you should feel bad.
They are bad even if you, for some reason, believe that molestia and pinkamena are actually valid tags.

They are valid tags, and they are different versions of the same character.

These are the only two character tags that imply other character tag that is not umbrella tag like fan_character.

Up until recently, we haven't implied character tags to anything but copyright.

With this implication you can't efficiently search for picture with both pinkamena and pinkie pie.

People who see both tags as valid tags have limited search because of this implications.

pinkamena square_crossover

Same problem was with mega_evolution tags (see forum #154877) and lead to removal of implications.

There is no equivalent for this. Pokémon are treated partly like species and partly like characters. In a technical sense, implying them based on evolution lines like speces tags are would make the most sense (raichu -> pikachu -> pokémon). However, in practice this doesn't work very well for searching. So it was decided that pokémon should not be implicated this way. Mega pokémon are really just an extension of this decision.

Another problem is that even though both of them are fan characters they imply fim tag through implication which breaks whole idea of distinction between fim and mlp tag.

I've addressed this in the above post.

I also have no idea why only one of these characters is implied to fan_character

Because it is a fan character.

and doesn't have mlp suffix.

The mlp suffix is irrelevant.

People who doesn't, like me, just thinks that this is ridiculous. If you want to pretend that these two are separate characters that deserve their own tags then don't implicate them to valid tags.

They are not two separate characters, they are different versions of the same character. There is enough posts of both that we have implicated them, both based on what most people would expect to find with a search and to keep tagging efficient and conisistent.

Granberia said:

Did you at least read what I've written in this thread or did you just read title, though "Oh no, it's this anti-brony asshole again.", and make an answer without even looking at thread. This is not about aliasing those tags. This is only about removing implications. I said it multiple times that this is not about validity of the tags, and yet I have to read this sentence.

Bad placement of sentence, I apologize for that. It's more related to the first bullet point rather than your proposal.

Granberia said:
Not only that, but you don't even say what "new tagging conflicts" (different then those people have to face after removing mega_<pokemon> implications) it's going to bring.

Tagging conflicts as in tag warring. The majority of the mega pokémon tags didn't have implications. People found it confusing to implicate one to the other so we made it consistent across the mega pokémon tags. History has shown us that making pokémon implications causes more problems than it solves, so we allow users to correct the tags as needed.

We do not have these same issues with the Pinkamena tag, and most people seem to not have a problem with the implication. It's a subcategory rather than a different thing altogether.

parasprite said:
pinkamena square_crossover

Let's throw a wrench into that: pinkamena square_crossover chartags:>2
This helps narrow down into the reason this search doesn't work:
post #485554
This does not look like a Pinkamena with a Pinkie_pie image. Surprise is an earlier generation version of Pinkie Pie, therefore the square crossover tag is valid, but as such, it does not cover Pinkamena with Pinkie Pie!

princess_molestia square_crossover chartags:>2
Only reveals one image, but that image itself is a problem
post #637290
Luna's the one in a square crossover, not Molestia.

flutterbat_(mlp) square_crossover chartags:>2
Nothing wrong here, at the present, but since the other two have proven that it can result in false positives, I believe these all need to be undone now. Square Crossover isn't a catch all, you never know which character is experiencing it, and it's easy for these "two-form" individuals to only have one form in an image, while another character is in the image with two forms.

Maybe it's because it was a newer thread than this, but the argument at least prevented the decision from being made (in either direction) for Wolf Link and Link: forum #200657

Image that sparked me into finding this: post #1188410 when I saw the fluttershy tag I looked to see if any of the panels had her in it, and then attempted to remove it when they didn't, only to find out it was implicated. Flutterbat thread unfortunately got locked due to "Flutterbat is a helpful tag" (A couple of users wanted it invalidated rather than simply unimplicated): forum #109375