The tag alias #64916 descendant -> ancestor_and_descendant_(lore) has been approved.
Reason: Makes Sense, Right?
EDIT: The tag alias descendant -> descendant_(lore) (forum #381941) has been approved by @slyroon.
Updated by auto moderator
Topic: [APPROVED] Tag alias: descendant -> descendant_(lore)
Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
It doesn't make sense to have both descendant_(lore) and ancestor_(lore), since to have one you need the other (like parent_(lore) needs a child present).
watsit said:
It doesn't make sense to have both descendant_(lore) and ancestor_(lore), since to have one you need the other (like parent_(lore) needs a child present).
Fair Point
The tag alias descendant -> descendant_(lore) (forum #381941) has been approved by @slyroon.
Since ancestor_(lore) and descendant_(lore) are now legitimised, should we have a ancestor_and_descendant_(lore) tag? (Let's ignore that if used properly, all three tags are equivalent)
snpthecat said:
should we have a ancestor_and_descendant_(lore) tag? (Let's ignore that if used properly, all three tags are equivalent)
can't we just alias these two to ancestor_and_descendant_(lore)? Since, as you said, they are equivalent