'wave' should be aliased to 'waving'

wave -> waving

@Dragonpone
 
No. they are both completely different things:
 
Waving:
 

 
Wave:
 

@Mildgyth  
Oh, sorry. I assumed so since some of the images I saw tagged with ‘wave’ were the same as ‘waving’, thanks for cleaning up the ‘wave’ tag.

Speaking of which, should ‘waves’ be aliased into ‘wave’ then?  
waves -> wave

@Dragonpone
 
Or the other way; i’m not sure of which.

 
Quite a few images within “wave” are water undulations!
 
Counter-suggestion: leave “wave” as is, create “wave (gesture)” as pre-emptive alias for “waving”.

@saby
 
But that’s more or less what i decided, except for the “wave (gesture)” thing. besides, i alrady removed all waving from wave, and the question now is to which direction do the waves<=>wave alias.

@Mildgyth  
‘Waves’ might help separate it from people who would otherwise tag ‘wave’ to refer to waving, like was apparently done before.

@Mildgyth  
Yeah, when I started typing the response there were zero replies. Hence my edit message.

@Dragonpone  
I would not really like to see stuff like this tagged waves  
>>1111732  
>>1268902
 
Maybe just let it be as it is?

@patec
 
I don’t think we need two tags for the exact same thing. and plus, most alias seem to go on the pluar-singular way on those cases.

@Mildgyth  
They do.  
But the suggestion is to have it done in the other direction which makes less sense.

@patec
 
We don’t have to do the alias in the exact direction it was proposed… in fact, it was proposed orgiinally as waves -> wave.

Done.