The bulk update request #5002 is pending approval.

remove implication snake_penis (670) -> snake (49795)
remove implication snake_penis (670) -> unusual_penis (5283)
create alias snake_penis (670) -> penis_snake (0) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
create alias cock_naga (51) -> penis_naga (0)
remove implication snake_for_a_tongue (12) -> snake (49795)
remove implication snake_for_a_tongue (12) -> unusual_tongue (150)
create alias snake_for_a_tongue (12) -> tongue_snake (0) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
remove implication snake_tail (973) -> snake (49795)
create alias snake_tail (973) -> tail_snake (0) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR

Reason: This has been bugging me for literally a decade (see topic #1155), and given I've been looking into snaked and snake_impalement lately, the topic of snake bodyparts has been on my mind a fair bit lately.

• snake_tail is easily confused with draconcopode
• snake_penis is easily confused with hemipenes
• snake_tongue isn't an issue anymore, but was always getting confused with forked_tongue
• I'm not sure what to make of anguiped and snake_hair just yet.

I'm specifically choosing to not add implications towards snake on any of these (or to naga for penis_naga), because "snake" here refers more to the "philosophical snake" than the species itself, and some may disagree on where the exact border between "penis snake" and "sentient penis" lies.

post #1788472 post #2204831 post #2050586 post #1626228 post #1088183

Related threads:

• topic #503 (snake_penis, leading to alias #4072)
• topic #32817 (snake_for_a_tongue)

I'm 98% sure your BUR in its current state will fail to compile.

Duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR.

I believe this refers to the implications, or aliases attached to these concepts, and the BUR will fail to compile with this type of issue.

The aliases will likely have to be applied in a second BUR.

Here is what you can and should do in the first BUR:

- Remove all implications, and aliases from existing tags. Check each tag, or at least until the errors stop being thrown. Snake_penis has aliases that need to be removed.
- Make each new tag imply the old tag's implications. Unusual anatomy tags will still apply, but don't apply it to `tail_snake`, as it should imply [[living_tail]] instead, which already implies the concept.

You can have the second BUR prepared that adds back the aliases, and even have it submitted in this forum topic before the first BUR gets approved if you wanted to.

Feedback

- The suggested formats are much preferred over snake_[x], and snake_for_a_[x]. A good tag length with less ambiguity.
- It should be okay to leave the snake implication off, but the wikis need to be properly documented if the tags will apply to more than snakes.
- I feel that snake_hair is fairly obvious what it is. It could be either format, and still work, but mane_snake sounds weird, so perhaps we should leave the hair tags as is.

fluffball said:
I'm 98% sure your BUR in its current state will fail to compile.

Maybe, but I might make changes to it depending on where the discussion goes, so for now I'll just keep it as is and wait for feedback.

fluffball said:

Feedback

- The suggested formats are much preferred over snake_[x], and snake_for_a_[x]. A good tag length with less ambiguity.
- It should be okay to leave the snake implication off, but the wikis need to be properly documented if the tags will apply to more than snakes.

That's one thing a lot of the snake tags are hazy on, and where I feel that some leeway could be beneficial. Like, it doesn't feel right that snaked wouldn't count just because it's a dratini and not a "normal snake".

fluffball said:
- I feel that snake_hair is fairly obvious what it is. It could be either format, and still work, but mane_snake sounds weird, so perhaps we should leave the hair tags as is.

Yeah, snake hair is the one people are most likely to already know, given it's just how some creatures like Medusa are described in almost all sources, and snakes aren't known for their hair, so the most intuitive association is what the tag means. It does look weird next to all the other ones, but you could argue that "snake hair" refers to the "feature", the mass of hair itself, while "hair snake" would be the individual snakes.

I'm trying very hard to not mess up the order.