Alias: lookalike <-> look-alike

lookalike <-> look-alike

These are the same concept. I'm not sure which one is preferred.

Their descriptions are somewhat similar, but different in major details. (which can be changed eventually)

• look-alike allows characters from the same series together; lookalike allows only crossovers and parodies
• look-alike allows only groups (two or more) characters together; lookalike allows parodies, which apparently includes allowing a cosplayer wearing the clothes of the other character

maybe look-alike is tag worthy material, but i'm having doubts with the choice of name which greatly resembles lookalike which is counterintuitive if it's even different with major details.

this might be prone to tag misuse especially to taggers that don't always check the wiki first. just my 2 cents.

They're the same thing, and I don't think we should be particularly restrictive. One character should be fine if its clear its a parody of a similar-looking character. From the same series should be OK too, though it doesn't seem like we would have many examples of that (excluding identical-looking characters like twins and clones which should not be in the tag).

That's unnecessarily nitpicky to the extreme. Combine them.

Aliased to look-alike.

What about single random characters that can be easily mistaken for other/famous ones but without any connection explicitely intended from the artist? Things like post #277099, post #592611, post #1008753...

I'd say those shouldn't get tagged lookalike.

jjj14 said:
I'd say those shouldn't get tagged lookalike.

Yeah, I noticed those when browsing the tag before, and hadn't said or done anything yet on it, but I agree with jjj14. Don't think they should be tagged if there isn't any sort of reference to the lookalike character.

Would it be worthwhile putting those kinds of images into a pool?