Should gatomon be implicated to digimon ?

Reason: character - copyright relationship

Also,when creating an implication/alias of a copyright/char tag, do you include the prefix or leave it as-is? i.e

gatomon -> digimon
or
char:gatomon -> copy:digimon ?

Edit: Apparently it's already implicated,which is strange since I had to add in the copyright manually afterwards

Since we're on the subject anyway, I noticed gardevoir doesn't implicate pokemon.

O,h and I'm pretty sure that when suggesting an implication or an alias you don't need to add the "copy:" "char:" "art:" etc. things. Plus a lot of tags are automatically turned into the appropriate tag type by the system.

There,added it to the title.

They are?Didn't know that.So if there was ever to be an implication/alias created for a general tag like thorns

Such as thorns -> thorn

What happens to the artist thorn?Would he/she have to be renamed with a qualifier or something similar?

I personally think things like bakugon, digimon, pokemon, yugioh, monsters rampage and all those shows, there are WAY too many to constantly make them implicated. Why not just type in whatever show it's from, it's really not that hard to do. I personally wouldn't waste all my time editing in every name or every character from every tv show, that's almost impossible, you never know when a new episode is coming on tv with a new creature AND when someone is going to draw one on here.

(SIGH) Just my opinion though

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Since we're on the subject anyway, I noticed gardevoir doesn't implicate pokemon.

I don't think anyone wants to set up all of those implications

Snowy said:
I don't think anyone wants to set up all of those implications

If memory serves, we've already set up at least a hundred of them. >.>

Oh, and furfan: It'd be troublesome to have all of them implicated to the associated copyright, but once they become a relatively common tag, it's probably worth doing.