Posted under Tags
create implication shackle -> cuffscreate implication handcuff -> cuffs
Shackles is aliased to shackle. Shackles implicates cuffs, but shackle itself doesn't.
Handcuffs also has pretty much the same oddity, but this time singular handcuff is aliased to plural handcuffs. Handcuffs implicate cuffs, handcuff doesn't.
Since singular cuff is aliased to plural cuffs, I don't see a reason these implications shouldn't exist.
Updated
warh said:
create implication shackle -> cuffs
Shackles is aliased to shackle. Shackles implicates cuffs, but shackle itself doesn't.
These are a remnant of an old bug I fixed and new cases shouldn't occur anymore. I'm going to write a script to automatically fix all of these existing cases on the site for the next version. e.g. It will update the existing "shackles -> cuffs" implication to be "shackle -> cuffs" instead.
warh said:
create implication handcuff -> cuffs
Handcuffs also has pretty much the same oddity, but this time singular handcuff is aliased to plural handcuffs. Handcuffs implicate cuffs, handcuff doesn't.
Since singular cuff is aliased to plural cuffs, I don't see a reason these implications shouldn't exist.
There's nothing strange about that. The tag is handcuffs, and that implicates cuffs as it should. The tag that was aliased away was handcuff, and that doesn't implicate anything. All is well already. Aliased tags shouldn't implicate anything.
Toks said:
It will update the existing "shackles -> cuffs" implication to be "shackle -> cuffs" instead.
Please don't consider this an act of nitpicking, but doesn't it make more sense to alias shackle to shackles and not vice versa (since handcuff is aliased to handcuffs and cuff to cuffs, i.e. singular to plural)? This way there'd be no need to update the implication, as it already exists ("shackles -> cuffs"). If it's too much trouble, then having "shackle -> cuffs" is also nice though.
Toks said:
There's nothing strange about that. The tag is handcuffs, and that implicates cuffs as it should. The tag that was aliased away was handcuff, and that doesn't implicate anything. All is well already.
I noticed that something about shackles or handcuffs and their implications seems off, but wasn't exactly sure what is. Now it's clear for me.
Toks said:
Aliased tags shouldn't implicate anything.
Will remember that, thank you.
warh said:
Please don't consider this an act of nitpicking, but doesn't it make more sense to alias shackle to shackles and not vice versa (since handcuff is aliased to handcuffs and cuff to cuffs, i.e. singular to plural)? This way there'd be no need to update the implication, as it already exists ("shackles -> cuffs"). If it's too much trouble, then having "shackle -> cuffs" is also nice though.
I agree that reversing it so that the tag is shackles makes sense. They normally come in a pair.
remove alias shackles -> shackle
create alias shackle -> shackles
warh said:
This way there'd be no need to update the implication, as it already exists ("shackles -> cuffs").
Whether that alias is reversed or not the bugged implications still need to be fixed (and will be for the next version). This isn't the only bugged implication of its type. e.g. The aliased tag cumpool implicates cum.
