The tag implication #45571 livly_(species) -> cocone has been rejected.

Reason: Cocone currently owns copyright to the Livly franchise. This implication would work like Pokémon -> Nintendo and Digimon -> Bandai

EDIT: The tag implication livly_(species) -> cocone (forum #341894) has been rejected by @spe.

What is cocone? The wiki says nothing. Is it a person, or a company?

If this is a company that owns the franchise, then it would make more sense to imply livly_(species) -> livly_(series) and imply livly_(series) -> cocone.

watsit said:
What is cocone? The wiki says nothing. Is it a person, or a company?

If this is a company that owns the franchise, then it would make more sense to imply livly_(species) -> livly_(series) and imply livly_(series) -> cocone.

Apparently, it's the company that makes the game for Android Apps.

watsit said:
What is cocone? The wiki says nothing. Is it a person, or a company?

Yes, it is a company. They make apps both for themselves and other corporations (example: Disney). I added some links to their wiki page, but I admit it’s still pretty empty and needs some work.

Here is their official japanese website. I can’t find an english version.

Then I think my previous suggestion stands, to imply livly_(species) -> livly_(series) and imply livly_(series) -> cocone. We don't imply pokémon_(species) -> nintendo, but instead imply pokémon_(species) -> pokémon and imply pokémon -> nintendo.

watsit said:
Then I think my previous suggestion stands, to imply livly_(species) -> livly_(series) and imply livly_(series) -> cocone. We don't imply pokémon_(species) -> nintendo, but instead imply pokémon_(species) -> pokémon and imply pokémon -> nintendo.

Should I make a different implication request for this, like a BUR, or would it be redundant?

dimoretpinel said:
Should I make a different implication request for this, like a BUR, or would it be redundant?

A BUR would be good, yes.

The tag implication livly_(species) -> cocone (forum #341894) has been rejected by @spe.