The bulk update request #3953 is pending approval.

remove implication entwined_tails (3793) -> tail_coil (5231)

--dupe--
The bulk update request #3964 is pending approval.

remove implication entwined_tails (3793) -> tail_coil (5231)

Reason: First and foremost, implication #30716 has no reason given.

Theferore, while tail_coil can frequently happen with entwined_tails, it's not guaranteed, and as such, shouldn't be implied.

m3g4p0n1 said:
With that in mind, my reasoning is the following:

• Entwined_tails is the tail equivalent of hand_holding

• Entwined_tails shouldn't imply tail_coil, the same way hand_holding doens't imply restrained or dominant related tags

The keyword there:

Using one's tail to grip another participant, usually with intent to restrain or subdue.

It doesn't have to be to restrain or subdue, even if it often is. Note that tail_coil does not implicate restrained or bound. A tail can be coiled around another character without restraining them, so the implication seems fine to me. Requiring tail_coil to be restraining would leave no tag for a tail coiling some part of around another without it being a restraint.

watsit said:
The keyword there:
It doesn't have to be to restrain or subdue, even if it often is. Note that tail_coil does not implicate restrained or bound. A tail can be coiled around another character without restraining them, so the implication seems fine to me. Requiring tail_coil to be restraining would leave no tag for a tail coiling some part of around another without it being a restraint.

I believe I should've clarified my reasoning further.

I do not intend to say tail_coil is only to restrain or bind. As you said, it does not implicate those tags for this very reason, I assume.

My intent is to say that tail_coil must always showcase that the tail has a grip on someone/something, fully curled around X, being capable of holding X like a prehensile_tail.

entwined_tails don't always have a grip on the other's tail, as showcased on the "no grip" examples. As such, tails that are entwined, are usually but not always coiled together, they usually but not always have a good grip on each other.
Since they don't always have the requirements to be considered "coil", they shouldn't imply "coil".

Think of these copper cables as if they were tails:
https://imgur.com/a/R9f4oLW

Two cables together would be entwined_tails, touching together but no grip, can be easily pulled apart.

The other one have them coiled to each other, hard to pull, have a good grip

m3g4p0n1 said:
My intent is to say that tail_coil must always showcase that the tail has a grip on someone/something, fully curled around X, being capable of holding X like a prehensile_tail.

I don't get that. It can be coiled around without gripping. How else would you tag it when a tail is coiled around (but not gripping) something?

watsit said:
I don't get that. It can be coiled around without gripping. How else would you tag it when a tail is coiled around (but not gripping) something?

I see your point now... I could coil a copper cable around a pipe, but still have it stay loose around it, without a grip.
Should I reject my proposal? Or wait more input from other users?

Prehensile_tail should be enough to work as a tag for "when a tail has a grip on something", as it's a requirement for the tag.

May I suggest, then, to:

• 1) unalias tail_holding -> tail_hold?

• 2) alias tail_hold -> holding_tail -- Tail_hold means someone holding a tail, so it should be aliased to holding_tail.

• 3) tail_holding would be the equivalent of hand_holding.

• 4) And then we create a tag called "tail_holding_another" or something among these lines, if necessary.

I think tail_holding is more clear when reading than entwined_tail, but that might just be presonal preference.

m3g4p0n1 said:
I see your point now... I could coil a copper cable around a pipe, but still have it stay loose around it, without a grip.
Should I reject my proposal? Or wait more input from other users?

I'd wait for others to weigh in.

I do think it would be good to have a tag for when a tail is gripping/holding something (the same way a character can be holding a bag or another's hand, i.e. not as a restraint, but just holding contact), compared to someone holding a tail. Although I don't think tail_holding vs holding_tail is clear enough to have them mean these two things.

I strongly agree with this proposal. It's quite obvious that tail_coil was meant to be the non-serpentine counterpart to coiling. The overlap in actual use cases for tail_coil and entwined_tails is far too slim for an implication to be justified.

a_yak said:
I strongly agree with this proposal. It's quite obvious that tail_coil was meant to be the non-serpentine counterpart to coiling. The overlap in actual use cases for tail_coil and entwined_tails is far too slim for an implication to be justified.

If tail_coil is the non-serpentine counterpart to coiling, then this implication is completely valid.

Coiling says:
Coiling involves lamia/naga/snake type characters (or ones with tentacles) wrapping part of their bodies (the coils or tentacles) around another being. While this is commonly associated with predator/prey behavior, it is often an act of loving affection or even just teasing.

Having tail_coil require a grip makes it different, as coiling doesn't require one (it only requires being wrapped around part of another's body, no mention of force or restraint). Additionally, it mentions "it is often an act of loving affection or even just teasing", which is often what entwined_tails is for too. So if tail_coil is the non-serpentine version of coiling, it would only require the tail being wrapped around part of another's body, which definitely falls under entwined_tails, making the implication correct.

So IMO, the wiki for tail_coil should be fixed, not removing an implication from about 2.5k posts and leaving no tag for a tail coiling around part of another without being a grip.

watsit said:
Having tail_coil require a grip makes it different, as coiling doesn't require one (it only requires being wrapped around part of another's body, no mention of force or restraint). Additionally, it mentions "it is often an act of loving affection or even just teasing", which is often what entwined_tails is for too. So if tail_coil is the non-serpentine version of coiling, it would only require the tail being wrapped around part of another's body, which definitely falls under entwined_tails, making the implication correct.

You're mischaracterizing the definition of coiling. It says it involves "wrapping part of their bodies around another being", not "part of another being". The page for coiling makes far more sense using this interpretation; how would wrapping around one's tail alone be conducive to 'teasing'? The tag is even aliased to 'constriction'! What would be the point in constricting around a tail? Its example images also all depict coiling around a character's body rather than only an appendage.

a_yak said:
You're mischaracterizing the definition of coiling. It says it involves "wrapping part of their bodies around another being", not "part of another being".

Distinction without meaning. If a snake-like character was wrapped around someone's arm or leg, we would still say they're wrapped around another character. Just as if they're only wrapped around the stomach or torso of another character, they're still considered wrapped around that character, even though it's only part of that character.

a_yak said:
how would wrapping around one's tail alone be conducive to 'teasing'? The tag is even aliased to 'constriction'!

The other way around. Constriction is aliased to coiling, meaning constriction isn't considered a valid tag and the best approximation (not necessarily an exact duplicate) to its use would be coiling.

watsit said:
Distinction without meaning. If a snake-like character was wrapped around someone's arm or leg, we would still say they're wrapped around another character. Just as if they're only wrapped around the stomach or torso of another character, they're still considered wrapped around that character, even though it's only part of that character.

I disagree. I believe one's physical "self" is linguistically reserved for their central mass. A snake coiling around one's torso or abdomen could be described as coiling around them, but a tiny snake coiling around one finger would be described only as coiling around their finger, not coiling around them. If I reached deep into a pool to grab something, I'd say my arm got "all wet", but if someone sprayed me in the chest with a water gun, I'd say I'm "all wet".

Maybe this was a convoluted explanation, but I think it'll do.

a_yak said:
I disagree.

This is getting fairly deep into pedantry. If people disagree on "wrap... around another being" vs "wrap... around part of another being" being a necessary distinction, you can expect taggers to equally disagree and end up with inconsistent tagging if you try to restrict it.

More to the point, though, tail_coil -entwined_tails (so excluding the tag implication at issue here) has plenty of posts with a character's tail being wrapped around some part of another character, in a non-gripping/non-restraining action. I see it quite often used when it's around the neck (just the back of the neck, or all the way around), a leg, another tail (where entwined_tails wasn't tagged), a penis, etc. So people definitely aren't using the tag to mean a tail wrapped around the main body of another character, nor is it always used to mean having a grip on another character. Ergo, even when excluding its uses due to the implication, this implication is consistent with how people use it, and I see no problem with the tag being used like this, so any issue with the wiki's definition should have the wiki's definition fixed.

watsit said:
This is getting fairly deep into pedantry. If people disagree on "wrap... around another being" vs "wrap... around part of another being" being a necessary distinction, you can expect taggers to equally disagree and end up with inconsistent tagging if you try to restrict it.

It's a pedantic-sounding distinction that results in a massive difference in intended use cases. One post displaying characters intimately entwining tails and another displaying a character restrained by one's tail are so vastly different that it makes no sense for them to be grouped together by default.

watsit said:
Ergo, even when excluding its uses due to the implication, this implication is consistent with how people use it, and I see no problem with the tag being used like this, so any issue with the wiki's definition should have the wiki's definition fixed.

Aren't tags supposed to enable the discovery of desired posts in the most intuitive manner? The objective misuse of a tag is not the fault of the tag's definition. Changing tail_coil's definition to remove the "gripping" detail would only make it more difficult to find posts that the tag was originally intended to describe. The tag's page clearly implies it's a variant of coiling.

from tail_coil's page:
Generally applies to bipedal or quadruped subjects whose tail can be easily distinguished from the rest of their body, whereas the broader 'coiling' is used in reference to legless characters such as serpents.

a_yak said:
Changing tail_coil's definition to remove the "gripping" detail would only make it more difficult to find posts that the tag was originally intended to describe.

But keeping it would make it more difficult for people to find posts they're interested in it covering. Having to go through the 3.4k posts to clean it up, and reduce the ability to find what people are expecting from it, would be a lot of work for making the tag less useful.

watsit said:
But keeping it would make it more difficult for people to find posts they're interested in it covering.

Posts where a tail is more broadly wrapped around something? There's already a tag for that, coiled_tail.

from coiled_tail's page:
A long tail being used to hold something or someone by being wrapped around that someone or something as though a snake.

watsit said:
Having to go through the 3.4k posts to clean it up, and reduce the ability to find what people are expecting from it, would be a lot of work for making the tag less useful.

As above, there's a more relevant tag that they culd search for. Regarding the cleanup, I could take care of it. I've done large cleanups on my own before.

a_yak said:
Posts where a tail is more broadly wrapped around something? There's already a tag for that, coiled_tail.

That's not the same: "to hold something or someone by being wrapped around that someone or something". Coiled tail doesn't have to be for a character, and it's specifically for holding, unlike tail_coil which is specifically a character but doesn't have to be holding. It still wouldn't work as a more generalized entwined_tails since entwined_tails doesn't need to be holding.

Plus, tail_coil and coiled_tail aren't very obviously named for their different uses, making them ripe for mixups/mistags. We'd need better names here.

watsit said:
That's not the same: "to hold something or someone by being wrapped around that someone or something". Coiled tail doesn't have to be for a character, and it's specifically for holding, unlike tail_coil which is specifically a character but doesn't have to be holding. It still wouldn't work as a more generalized entwined_tails since entwined_tails doesn't need to be holding.

Plus, tail_coil and coiled_tail aren't very obviously named for their different uses, making them ripe for mixups/mistags. We'd need better names here.

This is getting messy. I'm confident in my belief that entwined_tails shouldn't implicate tail_coil because they're so vastly different, but what is the solution?

The best I can come up with is stripping posts with appendage-hugging tails from tail_coil and assigning them to a new tag, but I don't know what that tag would be.

a_yak said:
This is getting messy. I'm confident in my belief that entwined_tails shouldn't implicate tail_coil because they're so vastly different, but what is the solution?

The best I can come up with is stripping posts with appendage-hugging tails from tail_coil and assigning them to a new tag, but I don't know what that tag would be.

Perhaps the issue isn't the entwined_tails -> tail_coil implication being wrong, but rather there not being a tag that exists or is being used to describe what you intend.

For instance, in posts where the tail is clearly entwined and coiled around another tail, we can add the tail_gripping_tail, for example.

then we follow this standard:

I didn't check if there are similar tags being used for that though.

a_yak said:
This is getting messy. I'm confident in my belief that entwined_tails shouldn't implicate tail_coil because they're so vastly different, but what is the solution?

They're not that different. The only issue is the tail_coil wiki using the word "grip", which people aren't following and doesn't align with the coiled tag it's based on anyway. Remove that one word from the wiki, and entwined_tails is just a specialized case of tail_coil. At this point, it'd be better to leave tail_coil on the posts its on, fix the wiki, and make a new tag for a tail rigidly gripping someone/something (gripping_tail maybe? perhaps that would be confused for tail_grab...). But unimplying tail_coil from entwined_tails, manually removing tail_coil from most of the posts it's on, coming up with a new tag name for what people had been using it for, then implying entwined_tails to that tag and manually applying that tag to posts that had tail_coil, seems like a whole lot of unnecessary work, compared to simply making a minor adjustment to the tail_coil wiki definition that's in line with how people are using it.

watsit said:
They're not that different. The only issue is the tail_coil wiki using the word "grip", which people aren't following and doesn't align with the coiled tag it's based on anyway.

The definition tail_coil is perfectly aligned with coiling, but it's just being forcibly misused—this is what I've been saying!

from coiling's page:
Coiling involves lamia/naga/snake type characters (or ones with tentacles) wrapping part of their bodies (the coils or tentacles) around another being. While this is commonly associated with predator/prey behavior, it is often an act of loving affection or even just teasing.

from tail_coil's page:
Using one's tail to grip another participant, usually with intent to restrain or subdue. Generally applies to bipedal or quadruped subjects whose tail can be easily distinguished from the rest of their body, whereas the broader 'coiling' is used in reference to legless characters such as serpents.

The former's lack of the word "grip" is a distinction without a difference. Both definitions clearly outline the two behaviors as mainly, but not exclusively, predatory. Therefore, it can naturally be assumed that they're both forceful.

Entwined_tails, on the other hand, is not associated with predation or forcefulness whatsoever, and so it should not implicate tail_coil.

a_yak said:
The former's lack of the word "grip" is a distinction without a difference. Both definitions clearly outline the two behaviors as mainly, but not exclusively, predatory. Therefore, it can naturally be assumed that they're both forceful.

Except it specifically mentions it "is often an act of loving affection or even just teasing", which would imply a lack of force/power. So coiling, while it can have gripping force, does not require it, unlike the current definition of tail_coil. If the difference is that distinct for tail_coil to not be compatible with entwined_tails, then there very much is a difference with coiling. And again, the tail_coil tag is being used in a manner that doesn't require gripping force despite the wiki's definition, putting it in line with coiling. Changing how tail_coil is used and making a new tag to fill the void created would be a lot of work for no gain (as you'll just be doing the work of an alias manually), so it's better to make a minor adjustment to the wiki, and possibly make a new tag that requires gripping force if one is that necessary (although if people start using grip more, I think the combination of "tail_coil grip" would be largely fine for finding a tail coiling around someone with gripping force).

m3g4p0n1 said:
Perhaps the issue isn't the entwined_tails -> tail_coil implication being wrong, but rather there not being a tag that exists or is being used to describe what you intend.

For instance, in posts where the tail is clearly entwined and coiled around another tail, we can add the tail_gripping_tail, for example.

then we follow this standard:

tail_gripping_neck | tail_gripping_belly | tail_grippig_arm | ... |

I didn't check if there are similar tags being used for that though.

Well, there seem to be quite a few fairly-populated "tail_around*" tags (tail_around_leg, tail_around_arm, etc.), but none of them have wiki pages, and they seem to be hit-or-miss on whether the tagged posts involve a tail physically gripping the subject, or if they merely circumnavigate the area somewhat.

Do you think these tags should be repurposed for the posts unfitting of tail_coil, or should they be left as a broader set of tags where a physical grip isn't required?

watsit said:
Except it specifically mentions it "is often an act of loving affection or even just teasing", which would imply a lack of force/power. So coiling, while it can have gripping force, does not require it, unlike the current definition of tail_coil.

I think this whole disagreement is rooted in one oversight.

This sentence here…

from coiling:
While this is commonly associated with predator/prey behavior, it is often an act of loving affection or even just teasing.

…only explains some possible reasons for the action—it does not describe the nature of the action. Just as BDSM can be violent and forceful while remaining "romantic", coiling is the same, and there is no reason in my eyes to make the assumption that coiling wouldn't also be forceful in the "loving" or "teasing" context.

a_yak said:
there is no reason in my eyes to make the assumption that coiling wouldn't also be forceful in the "loving" or "teasing" context.

And there's no reason in my eyes to make the assumption that coiling needs to be forceful in a "loving" or "teasing" context. Since it doesn't say it needs to be, it's an assumption to think it must always be.

watsit said:
And there's no reason in my eyes to make the assumption that coiling needs to be forceful in a "loving" or "teasing" context. Since it doesn't say it needs to be, it's an assumption to think it must always be.

Alright, you have a point there. However, what about the difference between coiling around a character versus coiling around a character's appendage? Like I said, it sounds pendantic when deliberately explained, but I'm sure practically everyone would agree that neither "grip another participant" (in the case of tail_coil) and "wrapping part of their bodies around another being" (in the case of coiling) refer to wrapping around a tail.

a_yak said:
However, what about the difference between coiling around a character versus coiling around a character's appendage? Like I said, it sounds pendantic when deliberately explained, but I'm sure practically everyone would agree that neither "grip another participant" (in the case of tail_coil) and "wrapping part of their bodies around another being" (in the case of coiling) refer to wrapping around a tail.

The tail is part of someone, so wrapping around that part of a character is still wrapping around that character. If someone's holding on to a character's arm, it would be normal for them to say "they're holding on to me". Or if a character got shot in the leg, it would be normal for them to say "I got shot". cum_on_own_tail implies cum_on_self. Part of a character is still that character, so something that happens to that part happens to the character.

watsit said:
The tail is part of someone, so wrapping around that part of a character is still wrapping around that character. If someone's holding on to a character's arm, it would be normal for them to say "they're holding on to me". Or if a character got shot in the leg, it would be normal for them to say "I got shot". cum_on_own_tail implies cum_on_self. Part of a character is still that character, so something that happens to that part happens to the character.

In English, at least, different context can result in different wording. In this exact context, I'm certain most would agree that something wrapped around your arm is totally distinct from something wrapped around you.

Take a bracelet, for example. When you're wearing a bracelet, it isn't wrapped around you, it's wrapped around your wrist.

a_yak said:
In this exact context,

There is no "exact context" here. It's just the name of a tag that can be applied to thousands of images in thousands of different contexts.

a_yak said:
Take a bracelet, for example. When you're wearing a bracelet, it isn't wrapped around you, it's wrapped around your wrist.

But... "you're wearing a bracelet". It is wrapped around some part of you, it's not separate from you.

And again, this is all pedantic. I highly doubt whoever wrote the wiki was being this thoughtful about their wording, or that people who use it are this mindful about the precise words used. It doesn't say "the main torso/body of another character", and I see no reason to restrict coiling (and thus tail_coil) to only be for the main torso/body of a character. If you try to force that change, then you'll just be opening a gap in the tags where it's not coiling around the main torso/body of a character, necessitating a new tag that's not for the main torso/body and that all current uses would apply to. A lot of work for no benefit.

watsit said:
There is no "exact context" here. It's just the name of a tag that can be applied to thousands of images in thousands of different contexts.

All images in question involve a tail wrapping around at least a part of a character's body, correct? That seems pretty exact to me.

watsit said:
But... "you're wearing a bracelet". It is wrapped around some part of you, it's not separate from you.

And again, this is all pedantic. I highly doubt whoever wrote the wiki was being this thoughtful about their wording, or that people who use it are this mindful about the precise words used. It doesn't say "the main torso/body of another character",

Again, it sounds pedantic when tediously explained, but I think it's quite intuitive. If somebody reads about a thing "wrapping around a guy", they wouldn't think it wrapped around his leg. If the author of the page intended to include wrapping around appendages, they would've explicitly specified so.

watsit said:
and I see no reason to restrict coiling (and thus tail_coil) to only be for the main torso/body of a character. If you try to force that change, then you'll just be opening a gap in the tags where it's not coiling around the main torso/body of a character, necessitating a new tag that's not for the main torso/body and that all current uses would apply to. A lot of work for no benefit.

From my assessment, the vast majority of coiling's uses involve wrapping around a torso, so it's not like this would practically rewrite its definition.