The bulk update request #9059 is pending approval.

remove implication lamia (4600) -> split_form (11725)
remove implication merfolk (5888) -> split_form (11725)

Reason: While lamia are supposed to have a humanoid upper body, it is also a reality that a fair amount of people do consider lamias to be synonymous to nagas, serpentine creatures with a anthropomorphized snake upper body.

As for merfolk, that tag does not just cover traditional humanoid mermaids but also other species that do not fit the definition of split_form, in addition to having the similar problem as Lamia were merfolk is fairly widely considered to also cover fish anthros and other fictional aquatic creatures outside of e621.

post #4027597 post #4958314 post #3816774 post #2924776 post #4851336 post #3874364

mistagging isn't a good reason to remove an implication.

dba_afish said:
mistagging isn't a good reason to remove an implication.

I would say it is when these mistags are on a fairly regular basis by different users and comes from an innate understanding of the term used for the tag that cannot be eliminated through guardrails imposed on the tags wiki.

And in the case of merfolk it is not just mistags, merfolk thru just its wiki alone definitionally covers more than what belongs in split-form.