Implicating nimbat → bat
Link to implication

Reason:

It looks like a bat.

Granberia said:
Implicating nimbat → bat
Link to implication

Reason:

It looks like a bat.

Meh, she also looks like a cat. Kind of a made up species anyways

Related stuff:

Need to clean up dust to dust_(character) done

Perhaps implicate nimbat to dust:_an_elysian_tail , dust_(character) to dust:_an_elysian_tail

Yeah, against. I think it's supposed to be it's own unique species, like a pokemon. As I understand it the current policy, which I agree with, is not to implicate made up species with the real world species they're based off of.

Tokaido said:
Yeah, against. I think it's supposed to be it's own unique species, like a pokemon. As I understand it the current policy, which I agree with, is not to implicate made up species with the real world species they're based off of.

I missed the thread when it was decided. I was sure that there's still implications like mightyena -> hyena, and now I see that it was deleted.
But what was decided about tagging post like post #601318
as a bat? I remember that some time ago there was suggestion to not implicate things, but add tags when it look alike. However I don't know what exactly was decided.

BTW, would implication nimbat -> mammal be okay instead?

Yeah, case-by-case you can add extra tags that fit, just don't do it as an implication.

Tokaido said:
Yeah, against. I think it's supposed to be it's own unique species, like a pokemon. As I understand it the current policy, which I agree with, is not to implicate made up species with the real world species they're based off of.

Well, there's certain pokèmon species I'd probably still tag with that species. Magikarp is...well a fish, victreebell is going to get the flora_fauna tag...like enough always, and ponyta is literally just a pony that is, for whatever reason, perpetually on fire.

Would I want to implicate them? Definitely not. Would I discourage tagging them with what might work as an implication? Nah.

The reasoning is more practical than anything. When I was doing the wikis, I had a count of 721 pokèmon (not counting mega evolutions). Some will fit, some won't, and some will cause endless tag wars regardless of what we do. We're better off leaving that can of worms sealed tight.

But understand that I'm saying pokèmon should be the exception, not the rule.

Granberia said:

BTW, would implication nimbat -> mammal be okay instead?

I think a broad tag would work better in this case and I see nothing wrong with that.

parasprite said:
and ponyta is literally just a pony that is, for whatever reason, perpetually on fire.

It's fucking awesome, do you really need a better reason?

Durandal said:
It's fucking awesome, do you really need a better reason?

And extremely hot.

Granberia said:
I missed the thread when it was decided. I was sure that there's still implications like mightyena -> hyena, and now I see that it was deleted.
But what was decided about tagging post like post #601318
as a bat? I remember that some time ago there was suggestion to not implicate things, but add tags when it look alike. However I don't know what exactly was decided.

BTW, would implication nimbat -> mammal be okay instead?

Parasprite already said it, but yeah, I think that tagging it on a case by case basis would be just fine. And implicating it to mammal would be great. I'd +1 that :D

Implication denied because it's not a bat. Nimbats are their own species. Even though nimbats are a species that somewhat resembles a cat/bat hybrid thingie. Mostly, they just look like a nimbat.

However, implication of nimbat to --> mammal is approved.