Implicating rawr → roaring
Link to implication

Reason:

A more specialized, cuter form of the act

EDIT: The tag implication rawr -> roaring (forum #281339) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

-1 should be aliased.

Versperus said:
-1 should be aliased.

I'd rather we keep distinguishing cutesy fake "rawrs":
post #283766 post #880492 post #1963769
From legitimate "roars":
post #2059938 post #2004201

Versperus said:
-1 should be aliased.

I feel similarly towards the nom tag, I don't really see why it should be distinguished from bite. Though the nom aliases have been approved by the staff, so apparently these types of tags are worth keeping.

JAKXXX3 said:
I feel similarly towards the nom tag, I don't really see why it should be distinguished from bite. Though the nom aliases have been approved by the staff, so apparently these types of tags are worth keeping.

that's a moldy approved implication, whether modern staff agree it's worth while could be different, as honestly that line of tags seems useless as well like you said.

CrocoGator said:
I'd rather we keep distinguishing cutesy fake "rawrs":
post #283766 post #880492 post #1963769
From legitimate "roars":
post #2059938 post #2004201

I would also like to add: that in many cases "rawr" is being said (e.g. in a cutesy manner or as a playful remark) rather than properly roared, therefore it wouldn't classify as an actual roar.

The tag implication rawr -> roaring (forum #281339) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.