Implicating snake_impalement → all_the_way_through
Link to implication

Reason:

Snake impalement is just all_the_way_through wirth snakes specifically.

I wonder if it should imply snake as well, while we're at it.

I've made the following changes:

• Implication: snake_impalement -> all_the_way_through (approved)
• Implication: snake_impalement -> snake (pending)

Thoughts/objections on the latter?

Hudson said:
Thoughts/objections on the latter? [snake]

tl;dr: I don't see any real problem.

If someone tags something as snake_impalement when there's not a snake around, then they're not tagging properly. Additionally there's no real ambiguity to speak of that could cause problems. The only problem I could see would it being used with other types of "elongated species" such as eels and worms, maybe even lizards, but not sure if that's a problem.

However I feel that there are more problems with the first implication since technically you don't really have to go for a "vertical" impalement. Which would mean you could technically tag something as snake_impalement while still not being all_the_way_through if not adhering strictly to our definitions. Additionally all_the_way_through could also be treated as fairly ambiguous with just a bit of imagination. But I think all that is irrelevant for us and I was just feeling chatty.