The bulk update request #5112 is active.

remove implication naga (6815) -> snake (48760)
create implication snake_naga (19) -> naga (6815)
create implication snake_naga (19) -> snake (48760)
create implication dragon_naga (5) -> naga (6815)
create implication dragon_naga (5) -> dragon (357821)
create implication pokemon_naga (3) -> naga (6815)
create alias pokémon_naga (0) -> pokemon_naga (3)
create implication pokemon_naga (3) -> pokemon_(species) (510486)

Reason: Three years ago, I made topic #26786 to try and figure out what to do with "non-snake nagas", so to speak. That lead to BUR #132, the creation of the draconcopode tag and the current hierarchy around naga and lamia. Since the approval of this BUR, a "dragon-naga" or what-have-you is considered not a naga at all, but merely an oddity that needs to be relegated to the broad draconcopode tag, because naga implies snake.

And I hate it.

It's become increasingly clear to me that "naga" is used by extension to refer to plenty of other "naga-coded"/"naga-like" creatures (usually dragons, but the draconcopode wiki shows a skunk, two slugs and a cactus), and that's a problem because it means there's a disconnect beteen wider use of the term and e6 usage, which leads to mistags. Since snake is part of the 6 other tags that naga implies, that means there's a fair amount of images tagged as snake because someone didn't realize that the definition of naga isn't supposed to cover non-snakes. There's also the lack of specificity that dragoncopode has, which makes somewhat common content harder to find than it should be.

So I give up! I'm proposing we change that. Is this BUR gathers support and gets approved, naga would now be generic over the species, and merely be the "non-split-form" counterpart to lamia. Much like with pregnant_female and oral_vore, the "obvious" sense would be relegated to just another subtag, snake_naga, to make room for more potential subtags. Note that none of these are populated as of now. I can't think of good names for the slugs, skunk and the cactus right now, so unless someone has a good suggestion, those will probably wait for a later BUR.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5112 (forum #369111) has been approved by @slyroon.

The pokemon_naga alias should be reversed for parity with other pokemon tags.

In addition to what Lafcadio said above, you should also imply the base species from the naga species. snake_naga -> snake, dragon_naga -> dragon, etc.
Otherwise, +1. I think this distinction makes more sense.

lafcadio said:
The pokemon_naga alias should be reversed for parity with other pokemon tags.

Huh, when did that switch happen? It's certainly news to me. My bad, I'll flip it.

scaliespe said:
In addition to what Lafcadio said above, you should also imply the base species from the naga species. snake_naga -> snake, dragon_naga -> dragon, etc.
Otherwise, +1. I think this distinction makes more sense.

Oh yeah, I knew I'd forgotten something, thanks!

Here's a tentative edit of the current wiki entry to accomodate for the changes:

post #528538 post #2373650 post #1728991 post #4134914
post #4081684 post #4132778 post #696673 post #3989500 post #1134936

An apode creature with an anthro upper body that moves around on a "snake-like" lower body of the same species. The term typically refers to the "snake with arms" kind of naga, where it's essentially just an all-snake lamia (not unlike what a horse_taur is to centaurs). By extension, it may also be used to refer to non-snake species, such as dragons, that are made to have the same body shape, but wouldn't count as lamias given how they are not split_form.

I've tried pulling a number of oddball examples I could recall on top of my head (post #2373650 is a legless lizard, not technically a snake), and I think they all give a pretty good idea of what the name is about. Making more subtags for this is going to be, uh... *interesting*.

I'm the one who tagged the skunk ones, and was quite confused what to do. Eventually chose lamia skunk hybrid. I'm still somewhat confused as to the difference between lamia and naga, perhaps naga would have been better. I doubt it would be a common enough situation to need it's own species tag; the only ones I know of are uvuzi and nyoka.

scth said:
I'm the one who tagged the skunk ones, and was quite confused what to do. Eventually chose lamia skunk hybrid. I'm still somewhat confused as to the difference between lamia and naga, perhaps naga would have been better. I doubt it would be a common enough situation to need it's own species tag; the only ones I know of are uvuzi and nyoka.

Don't worry, I understand your confusion. The problem with both naga and lamia is that (right now) they imply snake, so with the current tags you would have been meant to tag these skunks as just draconcopode.

The key distinction between naga and lamia, under the current definitions is that one is split-form and the other isn't, but they both start with a snake lower part, which that skunk doesn't have. The proposed change would relax the definition to allow naga to cover "snake-y enough" tails, even if they're externally made to look like a skunk, a slug or a cactus.

Skmeone asked me in private yesterday if I was considering extending these relaxed standards to lamia, and we both came to the conclusion that it would probably be a bad idea for the same reason that it's unclear whether something like fox_taur refers to a fox upper half, lower half or coherent whole.

I didn't realize before populating naga_(warcraft) yesterday, but another benefit of this new structure would be that the nagas from Warcraft 3 and WoW would qualify as nagas under the e6 definition.

post #667001 post #3067403

I'm not adding it as an implication because naga is more of a body type, and much like taur, you shouldn't tag it if the body type is not visible. Plus, I can't guarantee there aren't anthroified versions of these out there.

post #963160 post #249844

Bumping this, as I keep running into this situation when tagging.

scth said:
Bumping this, as I keep running into this situation when tagging.

I've been meaning to go through draconcopode first and fix up the tags where applicable, but it's a daunting task and much bgger than any tagging project I've ever done before, so I've yet to get arround it. Even without that, though, the BUR could still be harmlessly applied, and might actually be an improvement on the current state of things given how snake is currently being incorrectly implied by the current layout.

The bulk update request #5112 (forum #369111) has been approved by @slyroon.

The wikis are now up to date. Thanks everyone for upvoting this.