Implicating naga → snake
Link to implication

Reason:

naga is a snake :P

aurel said:
if naga is a snake, why we call them nagas, instead of snakes?
-1

How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?

h4x0r said:
How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?

why you respond with a joke when someone presents a valid question?

h4x0r said:
How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?

Are you saying that Reflections of Eyes are Real Eyes? Because they totally aren't. Your reflection is a Reflection of the light spectrum of your own body proportional to the angle at which you glance at the reflective surface of metal on the back of a sheet of glass, not your body itself.

Please try and answer the question honestly, rather than asking a question that can be answered against your own intentions. You mentioned in the Lamia thread that your thought process is "They're part snake," so lemme ask: would you say that a Gryphon should imply both Lion and Eagle?

Furrin_Gok said:
Are you saying that Reflections of Eyes are Real Eyes? Because they totally aren't. Your reflection is a Reflection of the light spectrum of your own body proportional to the angle at which you glance at the reflective surface of metal on the back of a sheet of glass, not your body itself.

i'll don the mantle of Context-Man for today

and yes, that is Will Smith's progeny.

but to the OP, calling a naga a snake is as calling a dragon a lizard.

It sounds like it could work, but it's too general. A dragon is usually a four-legged reptile with a pair of wings that can fly. A naga is usually a humanoid torso and head with the body of a snake.

Furrin_Gok said:
You mentioned in the Lamia thread that your thought process is "They're part snake," so lemme ask: would you say that a Gryphon should imply both Lion and Eagle?

Gryphon implies avian, so naga and lamia should at least imply scalie.
Edit: Centaur also implies equine.

0mnm652 said:
Edit: Centaur also implies equine.

Also human. I'd have changed that one to humanoid already if it weren't for it making the humanoid_on_x and taur_on_x definitions kind of blurry...

I think calling a naga a snake is fair. They are like any other anthro creature on the site.

aurel said:
*puts a human top on worm bottom*
NAGA-POWNED!

That's a bit of a stretch. The wide majority of people using the term Naga mean it to be a snake person.

spinwin said:
That's a bit of a stretch. The wide majority of people using the term Naga mean it to be a snake person.

Incorrect. There are plenty of Anthro snakes, they have a FULL humanoid body, legs included. They end up looking like lizard people as a result, except without the spines, and more snake-like frills (if any). Naga and anthro snake should be two completely different types of images.

While they kind of are legless anthro snakes, the current system of tagging them seems to work okay.

But it's not as if snake is a top-level species tag (it's just a suborder, could be compared to generic tags like canine). Implicating naga to cobra etc would obviously be wrong, but an implication to snake might work.

Ehh. I'm ambivalent about this. Not sure if it's needed, but it probably wouldn't break anything.

I think the implication that all Naga are snakes though is correct. Nothing that people have brought up seems to show otherwise.

Furrin_Gok said:
Incorrect. There are plenty of Anthro snakes, they have a FULL humanoid body, legs included. They end up looking like lizard people as a result, except without the spines, and more snake-like frills (if any). Naga and anthro snake should be two completely different types of images.

Well yeah that would be different but they both are snakes are they not? If they both are snakes then the implication should be that Naga are snakes.

Noticed this never got pushed through. Shouldn't naga at least imply snake since it's basically just an anthro snake without legs?

spinwin said:
Noticed this never got pushed through. Shouldn't naga at least imply snake since it's basically just an anthro snake without legs?

post #894063 Does not look like a snake to me.
post #880603 This one's more of a Lamia, meaning it got mistagged, but note the tail: It's got a fin over it. This is actually how the Naga of Warcraft 3 often are, as they were a legitimate aquatic race.
post #548477 (and post #457998) These images follows the vein of the "Legless body with anthro top" rule of Nagas, but isn't a snake, it's a slug.

The only thing that I believe matters for Nagas and Lamias is that:

• Lamia have an anthro/humanoid upper body that is a different species than their serpentine/legless lower body. _{Many merfolk would fall into this category, should we tag those as well?}
• Naga have an anthro upper body that is the same species as their serpentine/legless lower body.

Furrin_Gok said:
post #894063 Does not look like a snake to me.
post #880603 This one's more of a Lamia, meaning it got mistagged, but note the tail: It's got a fin over it. This is actually how the Naga of Warcraft 3 often are, as they were a legitimate aquatic race.
post #548477 (and post #457998) These images follows the vein of the "Legless body with anthro top" rule of Nagas, but isn't a snake, it's a slug.

The only thing that I believe matters for Nagas and Lamias is that:

• Lamia have an anthro/humanoid upper body that is a different species than their serpentine/legless lower body. _{Many merfolk would fall into this category, should we tag those as well?}
• Naga have an anthro upper body that is the same species as their serpentine/legless lower body.

none of those images is supposed to be tagged as naga. nagas are always based on snakes.

Mutisija said:
none of those images is supposed to be tagged as naga. nagas are always based on snakes.

Nagas are mythological creatures, though. Sort of like dragons, who can be scalie and lizard-like, but also be feathery and worm-like. I feel like we should use the broader definition, myself.

Furrin_Gok said:
Nagas are mythological creatures, though. Sort of like dragons, who can be scalie and lizard-like, but also be feathery and worm-like. I feel like we should use the broader definition, myself.

no, nagas are more like minotaurs. just like minotaur is always bovine based and cannot be based on for example horse, nagas are always snake based and cannot be based on something else.

Mutisija said:
no, nagas are more like minotaurs. just like minotaur is always bovine based and cannot be based on for example horse, nagas are always snake based and cannot be based on something else.

You're right, but pretty much every mmo, rpg or whatever these days have their own non-mythological version of a naga, which, even though it's not a traditional naga, is still called one.

Peekaboo said:
You're right, but pretty much every mmo, rpg or whatever these days have their own non-mythological version of a naga, which, even though it's not a traditional naga, is still called one.

they should be tagged as naga_(series name here)

Peekaboo said:
You're right, but pretty much every mmo, rpg or whatever these days have their own non-mythological version of a naga, which, even though it's not a traditional naga, is still called one.

Not really. There are a few places that use the term naga incorrectly but for the most part it doesn't seem to be used that much in art. When it is, it's used to refer to snake like things.

Peekaboo said:
You're right, but pretty much every mmo, rpg or whatever these days have their own non-mythological version of a naga, which, even though it's not a traditional naga, is still called one.

There's probably some, but I can't think of any offhand. Nagas tend to be snakelike, even when they're not depicted as 'snakes with arms'.

For example, in Dungeons and Dragons and Everquest nagas are feral snakes with human heads. And D&D combines what we tag as naga and lamia into one mixed species called yuan-ti. Fortunately that usage never got popular in other settings.

Mutisija said:
they should be tagged as naga_(series name here)

I second this idea. I think the broadest definition for Naga should be one that still implies snake.

spinwin said:
I second this idea. I think the broadest definition for Naga should be one that still implies snake.

Why not have Naga_(mythological) and imply the various naga types to the broad tag, so that people who just want to see the naga body type can see it for all of them at once?

Genjar said:
There's probably some, but I can't think of any offhand. Nagas tend to be snakelike, even when they're not depicted as 'snakes with arms'.

Fair enough. I'm not against the implication itself, but naga probably needs to be cleaned out before the implication takes place.

Peekaboo said:
Fair enough. I'm not against the implication itself, but naga probably needs to be cleaned out before the implication takes place.

Wouldn't mind doing that myself. I think most "Naga" that aren't snakes are much better served by other types of tags anyway.

I went through the first few pages and cleared up some lamia and naga confusion but other than that all of them implied snake or serpent the latter of which is aliased to snake. Even the Warcraft race would be included in the serpent tag.

spinwin said:
Wouldn't mind doing that myself. I think most "Naga" that aren't snakes are much better served by other types of tags anyway.

What tags do the others go into, then? Like, a gastropod-naga isn't a snake, therefore not a "naga" but you say there's a tag for it?

Furrin_Gok said:
What tags do the others go into, then? Like, a gastropod-naga isn't a snake, therefore not a "naga" but you say there's a tag for it?

It just would be a slug then. A naga by definition implies a serpent. It's not really a good way to find such a creature anyway.

Since we don't have a tag for it, maybe we should just add one for that 'leg' type (arms, but tail instead of legs). Could also be tagged for marine mermaid-like creatures and such.

Dunno what it'd be called, though.

Genjar said:
Since we don't have a tag for it, maybe we should just add one for that 'leg' type (arms, but tail instead of legs). Could also be tagged for marine mermaid-like creatures and such.

Dunno what it'd be called, though.

Could call it legless. Though that may imply a more gruesome thought. Slithering comes to mind don't know if that helps.

Bumping the thread--We need to decide if we're going to make up a new tag for them or just keep Naga and Lamia broad enough to include the worms and slugs.

As far as basing on leg types as Genjar suggested, this might be worth mentioning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unipedalism

As far as a completely separate species Tag, Nagaoid or Lamioid are the only things that come to mind based of humanoid(which is used for bodies similar in structure to human)
thru chances of a new species name catching on is far less the a leg/locomotion type.

forum #228424

Debate still goes on. Unipedalism does not work because they do not have any feet (A matter of confusion, people read and think "Feet" due to the use of "Pedalism," not "Seperated portions of the body in contact with the ground when moving"), and serpentine is misleading and will get feral snakes tagged too.

Chimera is way too vague and does not define what sort of mix it is.

Furrin_Gok said:
forum #228424

Debate still goes on. Unipedalism does not work because they do not have any feet (A matter of confusion, people read and think "Feet" due to the use of "Pedalism," not "Seperated portions of the body in contact with the ground when moving"), and serpentine is misleading and will get feral snakes tagged too.

Chimera is way too vague and does not define what sort of mix it is.

1st) Necromancer!!!

2nd) I am trying to discuss a name for this body type since forum #221775.

Suggestions for possible names:

• 'apod_human-like' (apod = legless)
• 'ofidioid' (literraly "serpent-like").¹

¹ Since it isn't english based, I believe it would prevent mistags.

O16 said:

¹ Since it isn't english based, I believe it would prevent mistags.

That is not very wise, we should be using obvious/intuitive (which includes aliases to) English words. If that is used, people would need aliases or know the word, in order to understand it. Otherwise, people are more likely to not tag it or make up a word.

Birthday_Rat_Siral said:
Otherwise, people are more likely to not tag it or make up a word.

Not sure if that's true, considering how common tags such as plantigrade and heterochromia are.

...heterochromia get typoed a lot, but it's also rarely if ever mistagged. Possibly because most new users are unfamiliar with the term, and have to actually check the wiki to figure out what it means.

I've noticed the same with most obscurely named tags: they're almost never mistagged. So it's not necessarily a bad thing.

I think it'd be worth a try. If it doesn't catch on, then it doesn't. But it's better to have some tag for them, than no tag at all.

Genjar said:
Not sure if that's true, considering how common tags such as plantigrade or heterochromia are.

...heterochromia get typoed a lot, but it's also rarely if ever mistagged. Possibly because most new users are unfamiliar with the term, and have to actually check the wiki to figure out what it means.

I've noticed the same with most obscurely named tags: they're almost never mistagged.

So it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Heterochromia is definitely not uncommon in art terms. I sincerely wanted to make a joke and changed multicolored_eyes to polychromia, which is an unknown and irrelevant word that, when dissected, fits the description for multicolored eyes.

Plantigrade and other obscure words are equally likely to be substituted for well known words, and if there is no "second best" then it may not be used at all, which then falls apon dedicated taggers to apply and fix those. It definitely helps when sources use it, but it is subjective to the user (like I know what they're teaching in high school). After all, I will say infantilism is an isolated fetish, confused with ageplay, that I've had to both fix and rerate; if we renamed it diaper fetish or ageplay fetish then it'd be less of a hassle.

But, in their statement I would rather *species*apod, not unlike we use *species*taur,

aurel said:
if naga is a snake, why we call them nagas, instead of snakes?
-1

So centaurs aren't horses nor man?

mrnotsosafeforwork said:
So centaurs aren't horses nor man?

Check the time stamp... That comment is old.

mrnotsosafeforwork said:
So centaurs aren't horses nor man?

Centaurs are a combination of horse and man, but Nagas, by original lore, are just anthro snakes. Thus, why not make it a body-shape tag? It's literally just legless anthro snake otherwise.
Ignore my post near the start of the thread saying otherwise

Furrin_Gok said:
Nagas, by original lore, are just anthro snakes. Thus, why not make it a body-shape tag? It's literally just legless anthro snake otherwise.
Ignore my post near the start of the thread saying otherwise

you have to consider what some common user would want to see when they type "naga" in search box. they do not want to see mermaids, slugs or whatever just happens to have that body form.

Mutisija said:
you have to consider what some common user would want to see when they type "naga" in search box. they do not want to see mermaids, slugs or whatever just happens to have that body form.

That's the thing. If we use another tag for it, such as apod, suddenly naga is the same as snake apod.

Well, I suppose aliasing naga to snakeapod would be the best solution for everybody then.