Donmai

FGO requests

Posted under Tags

Ylimegirl said:

BUR #34007 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

Show

create alias elizabeth_bathory_(first_ascension)_(fate) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate/extra_ccc)
create implication elizabeth_bathory_(second_ascension)_(fate) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate)
create implication elizabeth_bathory_(third_ascension)_(fate) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate)
create implication elizabeth_bathory_(jurassic_dream)_(fate) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate)
create implication elizabeth_bathory_(el_presidente)_(fate) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate)
create implication elizabeth_bathory_(joint_recital)_(fate) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate)
create implication elizabeth_bathory_(corroded)_(fate) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate)
create implication elizabeth_bathory_(sweet_room_dream)_(fate) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate)
create implication elizabeth_bathory_(beach_bloody_demoness)_(fate) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate)
create implication elizabeth_bathory_(dragon_magician_girl)_(fate) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate)
create implication elizabeth_bathory_(cheerleader)_(fate) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate)
create implication elizabeth_bathory_(idol's_sleep_wear)_(fate) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate)
create implication elizabeth_bathory_(dark_eliza)_(fate) -> elizabeth_bathory_(fate)

elly-chan

@Ylimegirl this is wrong, the fate/extra CCC tag says it's for the outfit from that game. We shouldn't be dumping everything under it. elizabeth bathory (first ascension) (fate) appears to be the same as elizabeth_bathory_(fate/extra_ccc), they should be aliased and the rest just implied to the main tag.

Ylimegirl said:

BUR #32735 has been rejected.

create implication barghest_(exhibition_attire)_(fate) -> barghest_(swimsuit_archer)_(fate)
remove implication barghest_(exhibition_attire)_(fate) -> barghest_(fate)

Barg implication. The name of the exhibition attire CE says "UDK-Barghest", indicating it's her swimsuit archer version.

This doesn't really matter to us. What matters is if there's something common visually that ties them together. In this case I can't see anything that would suggest we should have 2 layers of implications.

1 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 35