Fire Emblem implications

Posted under Tags

nonamethanks

Login_to_view said:

BUR #43915 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create alias mist_(path_of_radiance)_(fire_emblem) -> mist_(fire_emblem)
create alias mist_(radiant_dawn)_(fire_emblem) -> mist_(fire_emblem)

Not particularly a fan of these but throwing them in nonetheless.

Fuck, I didn't realize these were aliases instead of implications. If this was intended, it doesn't make much sense to me because this character has multiple costumes in the same game. We're starting to tell people to use character_tag + copyright for one costume and costume_tag for another costume. This is too confusing.

Updated by nonamethanks

Reply
Damian0358

nonamethanks said:

Fuck, I didn't realize these were aliases instead of implications. If this was intended, it doesn't make much sense to me because this character has multiple costumes in the same game. We're starting to tell people to use character_tag + copyright for one costume and costume_tag for another costume. This is too confusing.

I will point out that both those tags include the aforementioned costumes, so the aliases were still valid in so far as the fact the tags should be fractured (and the copytag qualifier shouldn't be used for ambiguity reasons).

Reply
1 12 13 14 15 16