The bulk update request #2046 is pending approval.

Reason: making a BUR as suggested here: topic #32492

the purpose of this BUR would be to primarily implicate all wound tags to wounded as well as to bifurcate wounds into minor_wounds and severe_wounds where possible and unambiguous.

Have you considered undead or synthetic/robot characters?
An animated_skeleton can experience decapitation and still be walking around like nothing has happened. Likewise, a robot experiencing dismemberment isn't necessary "wounded" by it.

Bottom line, consider that wounded only applies to living tissue as per the wiki.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Have you considered undead or synthetic/robot characters?
An animated_skeleton can experience decapitation and still be walking around like nothing has happened. Likewise, a robot experiencing dismemberment isn't necessary "wounded" by it.

Bottom line, consider that wounded only applies to living tissue as per the wiki.

I don’t really think those tags should be applied to non-living tissue either.

From decapitation:

Not to be confused with
detachable head – When a character's head can be easily removed without the character dying. Sometimes the head can even be replaced.

From dismemberment:

This tag covers the following:

The act of cutting or tearing a limb from a body. This includes partial removal.
The injury left on the body (or remainder of the limb) as a result of this act.

Regardless of some ambiguity here, I think it would be best to consider these to be wounds in any case, and to use different tags for characters that can’t be “wounded” in the sense used here.

achtungmaybe said:
The bulk update request #2046 is pending approval.

create implication bruised (6047) -> wounded (11898)
create implication minor_wound (152) -> wounded (11898)
create implication severe_wound (141) -> wounded (11898)
create implication fatal_wound (491) -> severe_wound (141)
create implication decapitation (2336) -> fatal_wound (491)
create implication dismemberment (1070) -> severe_wound (141)
create implication disembowelment (899) -> fatal_wound (491)
create alias gunshot_wound (248) -> bullet_wound (425)
create implication bullet_wound (425) -> wounded (11898)
create implication genital_wound (0) -> wounded (11898)
create implication genital_mutilation (1685) -> genital_wound (0)
create implication pussy_wound (36) -> genital_wound (0)
create implication penis_wound (3) -> genital_wound (0)
create implication ball_wound (0) -> genital_wound (0)
create implication slit_(wound) (110) -> wounded (11898)
create implication slit_throat (317) -> slit_(wound) (110)
create implication slit_wrists (0) -> slit_(wound) (110)
create implication slit_throat (317) -> severe_wound (141)
create implication broken_bone (318) -> wounded (11898)
create implication broken_nose (20) -> wounded (11898)
create implication broken_wing (297) -> wounded (11898)
create implication impalement (1105) -> severe_wound (141)
create implication bisected (363) -> fatal_wound (491)
create implication arrow_wound (20) -> puncture_wound (56)
create alias stab_wound (99) -> stab (1014)

Reason: making a BUR as suggested here: topic #32492

the purpose of this BUR would be to primarily implicate all wound tags to wounded as well as to bifurcate wounds into minor_wounds and severe_wounds where possible and unambiguous.

I’m not sure amputation can be considered a wound since it is often done surgically, and for proper medical reasons. I don’t think surgery counts for wounded, exactly… does it?

I’m also not sure that bullet wound counts as severe in all cases, it might be better to leave that to just wounded. Very small caliber bullets and shots to extremities like fingers might not count as severe… there’s also wounds caused by a bullet “grazing” the skin, which would also be pretty minor, though I don’t know if anyone’s using that tag for situations like that.

Also, you missed one that I saw: imply slit_wrists -> slit_(wound)

scaliespe said:
I don’t really think those tags should be applied to non-living tissue either.

From decapitation:
...

From dismemberment:
Regardless of some ambiguity here, I think it would be best to consider these to be wounds in any case, and to use different tags for characters that can’t be “wounded” in the sense used here.

Also from decapitation:
"Barring unusual circumstances (such as being undead, or being an android with no need of blood) a character injured in this way will always lose consciousness within seconds and quickly die."

This means that it is also applied to such characters, albeit uncommonly. In addition, you can consider hydra characters where decapitation of one of their heads is not entirely fatal.
Also, detachable_head means that their head can easily be removed and reattached; decapitation is when their head is NOT meant to be easily removed and/or reattached.

As for dismemberment, you can find a lot of candy_gore posts with candy characters going about with dismembered limbs like it's nothing.
So while wounded may be accurate, severe_wound is not since they are not really sustaining a "potentially life-threatening wound". Same logic applies with their decapitation and fatal_wound.

I do not agree with the implication of the "injuries" to their "severities" since characters can withstand certain amount of damage without it being considered as a severe_wound or fatal_wound. With the addition of non-living characters, the wounded tag would not entirely accurate for them, but the injury tags can still be applied.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Also from decapitation:
"Barring unusual circumstances (such as being undead, or being an android with no need of blood) a character injured in this way will always lose consciousness within seconds and quickly die."

This means that it is also applied to such characters, albeit uncommonly. In addition, you can consider hydra characters where decapitation of one of their heads is not entirely fatal.
Also, detachable_head means that their head can easily be removed and reattached; decapitation is when their head is NOT meant to be easily removed and/or reattached.

As for dismemberment, you can find a lot of candy_gore posts with candy characters going about with dismembered limbs like it's nothing.
So while wounded may be accurate, severe_wound is not since they are not really sustaining a "potentially life-threatening wound". Same logic applies with their decapitation and fatal_wound.

I do not agree with the implication of the "injuries" to their "severities" since characters can withstand certain amount of damage without it being considered as a severe_wound or fatal_wound. With the addition of non-living characters, the wounded tag would not entirely accurate for them, but the injury tags can still be applied.

Hence my suggestion that we use different tags entirely for characters like androids and undead. I doubt most people searching or blacklisting the tag are looking for/looking to blacklist characters who are apparently unaffected by the “injury.” Same goes for wounds in general. I wouldn’t want to find/blacklist candy gore situations if I’m using the wounded tag.

Creating separate tags for these non-injury or non-severe_wound situations would be much better in my own use case of blacklisting these severe wound or fatal wound posts, as I’d otherwise have to think of all the possible exceptions such as zombies or robots where the “injury” is not really harmful and thus not really disturbing to look at. Ie. I would blacklist decapitation because I don’t want to see characters being brutally killed, but a headless animated skeleton isn’t a problem. Even if the head can’t necessarily be reattached, it’s not the same thing, and shouldn’t share the same tag.

scaliespe said:
Hence my suggestion that we use different tags entirely for characters like androids and undead. I doubt most people searching or blacklisting the tag are looking for/looking to blacklist characters who are apparently unaffected by the “injury.” Same goes for wounds in general. I wouldn’t want to find/blacklist candy gore situations if I’m using the wounded tag.

Creating separate tags for these non-injury or non-severe_wound situations would be much better in my own use case of blacklisting these severe wound or fatal wound posts, as I’d otherwise have to think of all the possible exceptions such as zombies or robots where the “injury” is not really harmful and thus not really disturbing to look at. Ie. I would blacklist decapitation because I don’t want to see characters being brutally killed, but a headless animated skeleton isn’t a problem. Even if the head can’t necessarily be reattached, it’s not the same thing, and shouldn’t share the same tag.

I am doubtful of how these tags would be actively utilised or even defined, let alone necessary just for the sake of implying everything to wounded to adhere to the living things only rule.
In the end, you are going to create a whole list of non-wounding_<injury type> tags and people are just going to mistag it with the original injury tags since there is no distinction of it being "wounding" or not in the name.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I am doubtful of how these tags would be actively utilised or even defined, let alone necessary just for the sake of implying everything to wounded to adhere to the living things only rule.
In the end, you are going to create a whole list of non-wounding_<injury type> tags and people are just going to mistag it with the original injury tags since there is no distinction of it being "wounding" or not in the name.

If wounded already requires that it be on a living character, it doesn’t make sense to have the various types of wounds not require the same. We could either allow wounded to be applied to anything regardless of what it is and whether or not it would actually be fatal (this is somewhat TWYK anyway - how do you know that removing an android’s head wouldn’t “kill” it? It’s a fictional being in the first place - probably makes more sense to just apply human/animal standards to everything) or we create new tags for these “injuries” on things that can’t be injured so that the various wound tags can be consistent. Keeping it how it currently appears to be isn’t logically consistent.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Also from decapitation:
"Barring unusual circumstances (such as being undead, or being an android with no need of blood) a character injured in this way will always lose consciousness within seconds and quickly die."

This means that it is also applied to such characters, albeit uncommonly. In addition, you can consider hydra characters where decapitation of one of their heads is not entirely fatal.
Also, detachable_head means that their head can easily be removed and reattached; decapitation is when their head is NOT meant to be easily removed and/or reattached.

As for dismemberment, you can find a lot of candy_gore posts with candy characters going about with dismembered limbs like it's nothing.
So while wounded may be accurate, severe_wound is not since they are not really sustaining a "potentially life-threatening wound". Same logic applies with their decapitation and fatal_wound.

I do not agree with the implication of the "injuries" to their "severities" since characters can withstand certain amount of damage without it being considered as a severe_wound or fatal_wound. With the addition of non-living characters, the wounded tag would not entirely accurate for them, but the injury tags can still be applied.

that was a contention I was struggling with when I compiled the BUR - I made it with the distinction in mind being "if you have to go to the hospital to get it treated, it's severe", though I can see how the line would get blurred. despite that I think it'd still be a good way to distinguish more gorey injuries from just token injuries if applied at least semi-accurately but it's not something I feel too strongly about so long as wounds are implicated to the wounded tag

wrt to non-living characters, I can see your point, especially with your example of skeleton characters and decapitation - however, i find it difficult to assign the tag solely to living characters with flesh. If you searched robot + wounded, you'll find many examples where the robot character is visibly damaged and/or in pain (e.g. https://e621.net/posts/2978675) - does this not constitute a wound? if the wiki says otherwise i believe the wiki needs changing in this regard

achtungmaybe said:
that was a contention I was struggling with when I compiled the BUR - I made it with the distinction in mind being "if you have to go to the hospital to get it treated, it's severe", though I can see how the line would get blurred. despite that I think it'd still be a good way to distinguish more gorey injuries from just token injuries if applied at least semi-accurately but it's not something I feel too strongly about so long as wounds are implicated to the wounded tag

wrt to non-living characters, I can see your point, especially with your example of skeleton characters and decapitation - however, i find it difficult to assign the tag solely to living characters with flesh. If you searched robot + wounded, you'll find many examples where the robot character is visibly damaged and/or in pain (e.g. https://e621.net/posts/2978675) - does this not constitute a wound? if the wiki says otherwise i believe the wiki needs changing in this regard

The main reason why I am adamant about this BUR is your suggestion to imply injuries to their severities.
One can get beaten to a pulp and be close to death (cue think_mark_think!) and your bruised tag only says that it's a minor_wound.
Likewise, bullet_wound can seem like a pin prick when applied to macro characters, yet it is still considered a severe_wound.
Lastly, decapitation and dismemberment does not always end up with a fatal_wound or severe_wound for certain characters who are mostly unfazed by the damage, e.g., a hydra does not die from a single decapitation and goo_creatures may even regenerate after the damage has been done.
It is also worth noting that in the wounded wiki, it states for severity of wounds that "not all types of wounds may fall neatly into one of these categories" and "leaving the severity untagged is always an option."

As for implying injuries to wounded in general, I'm still opposed to some of your suggestions, such as bite_mark or scratches implying wounded when it can be some slight discolouration in the skin without breaking through the skin.
Second to that of invulnerable characters (such as goo_creature again) showing no form of pain or wounding whatsoever when experiencing injuries (such as impalement or puncture_wounds only causing a mild discomfort).

I don't understand why others are not scrutinising this further.

thegreatwolfgang said:
The main reason why I am adamant about this BUR is your suggestion to imply injuries to their severities.
One can get beaten to a pulp and be close to death (cue think_mark_think!) and your bruised tag only says that it's a minor_wound.
Likewise, bullet_wound can seem like a pin prick when applied to macro characters, yet it is still considered a severe_wound.
Lastly, decapitation and dismemberment does not always end up with a fatal_wound or severe_wound for certain characters who are mostly unfazed by the damage, e.g., a hydra does not die from a single decapitation and goo_creatures may even regenerate after the damage has been done.
It is also worth noting that in the wounded wiki, it states for severity of wounds that "not all types of wounds may fall neatly into one of these categories" and "leaving the severity untagged is always an option."

As for implying injuries to wounded in general, I'm opposed to some of your suggestions, such as bite_mark or scratches implying wounded when it can be some slight discolouration in the skin without breaking through the skin.

The skin does not have to break to be considered a wound. That’s generally what a bruise is. So, both of those should imply wounded regardless.

As for decapitation and dismemberment, I think we could still at least call them severe wounds in any case. The thing with hydras and some goo creatures is that they regenerate very quickly, but the loss of a limb (or a head) is still significant damage. Even if they appear to be unfazed by it, that doesn’t imply that the damage is irrelevant - it could be that they don’t feel pain. The just a flesh wound tag exists to demonstrate that.

Note also that fatal wound does not currently imply death or dying. Theoretically (though the wiki would need to be rewritten), a normally fatal wound could be survived due to various factors such as magic or technology or the character’s own unique regenerative abilities that could allow them to survive a decapitation. I think we could still have decapitation imply fatal_wound simply because it is normally fatal under mostly any circumstances, but we don’t assume that the fatal_wound will actually be fatal. Something like a goo creature’s regenerative abilities would be either A. TWYK, and therefore not considered in the context of tagging; or, if the regeneration is actually depicted, B. an atypical condition that allows a creature to survive a normally unsurvivable wound. Even in the case of multi-headed creatures, I think a decapitation should normally be considered death simply because the general assumption with any multi-headed creature is that each head is a discrete personality, such as is the case in real-life dicephalism. That is often confirmed in posts depicting a multi-headed character’s heads acting separately, but you can’t confirm that all the heads belong to a single mind without something like dialogue or explanatory text which is not considered for the purposes of TWYS anyway.

scaliespe said:
The skin does not have to break to be considered a wound. That’s generally what a bruise is. So, both of those should imply wounded regardless.

I think it would be considered an overstatement to tag these as wounded.
In addition, some scratches/bite_mark posts also include scars.

post #2579582 post #2634058 post #2605636 post #3067405 post #2947478 post #2794325
post #3100638 post #3012607 post #2853648 post #2643323 post #2652494 post #2835176

As for decapitation and dismemberment, I think we could still at least call them severe wounds in any case. The thing with hydras and some goo creatures is that they regenerate very quickly, but the loss of a limb (or a head) is still significant damage. Even if they appear to be unfazed by it, that doesn’t imply that the damage is irrelevant - it could be that they don’t feel pain. The just a flesh wound tag exists to demonstrate that.

There seems to be a misunderstanding as to the purpose for the tag, the just_a_flesh_wound wiki states:
"This tag should be used for references to the meme, not for any image in which a character is damaged without feeling pain."

Additionally, I don't feel it to be right to use a meme tag for every character who are unfazed by their injuries, especially those with no reference to said meme.

Note also that fatal wound does not currently imply death or dying. Theoretically (though the wiki would need to be rewritten), a normally fatal wound could be survived due to various factors such as magic or technology or the character’s own unique regenerative abilities that could allow them to survive a decapitation. I think we could still have decapitation imply fatal_wound simply because it is normally fatal under mostly any circumstances, but we don’t assume that the fatal_wound will actually be fatal. Something like a goo creature’s regenerative abilities would be either A. TWYK, and therefore not considered in the context of tagging; or, if the regeneration is actually depicted, B. an atypical condition that allows a creature to survive a normally unsurvivable wound. Even in the case of multi-headed creatures, I think a decapitation should normally be considered death simply because the general assumption with any multi-headed creature is that each head is a discrete personality, such as is the case in real-life dicephalism. That is often confirmed in posts depicting a multi-headed character’s heads acting separately, but you can’t confirm that all the heads belong to a single mind without something like dialogue or explanatory text which is not considered for the purposes of TWYS anyway.

As you have said, that is not what the wikis currently say:

• Firstly, minor_wound is when "a character sustains a slight wound."
• Secondly, severe_wound is when "a character sustains a potentially life-threatening wound."
• Thirdly, fatal_wound is when "a character is wounded so severely that they will certainly die." (<- this could mean either death or imminent_death, so it is not implied to a single one)

Your argument is based on your new definition that a fatal_wound be "normally fatal under mostly any circumstances" and not that the actual character in the post not dying from it.
In addition, would all three of these tags be mutually exclusive (i.e., tagged together)? If decapitation implies fatal_wound (which can mean imminent_death or death), would death and wounded be mutually exclusive?

I cannot find relevant posts here on e621, but I can imagine such posts existing:

• Imagine Mimir from God of War but without needing to be resurrected later, effectively turning into a living, talking severed_head (and not that a detachable_head since it cannot be "reattached"). This would not fit fatal_wound in its current definition.
• Imagine the scene when Omni Man brutally beats Invincible to near death, he would be bruised and it would be considered as a "minor_wound".

thegreatwolfgang said:
I think it would be considered an overstatement to tag these as wounded.
In addition, some scratches/bite_mark posts also include scars.

Those are technically all wounded, yes. We tend to associate the word “wounded” with severe wounds in common usage of the word, but it makes more sense to use it here as an umbrella tag for wounds regardless of severity, since we have minor_wound and severe_wound to mark the severity. If someone gets a paper cut and says “I’m wounded,” we’d generally consider that to be an exaggeration, even comically so. However, the word “wound” doesn’t imply the severity, so it’s not incorrect. A paper cut, however minor, is still technically a wound, and a person with a paper cut is technically wounded. Besides, I can’t really think of a better umbrella tag for all wounds - besides just wound, which is essentially the same thing as wounded and faces the same issue of common usage.

There seems to be a misunderstanding as to the purpose for the tag, the just_a_flesh_wound wiki states:
"This tag should be used for references to the meme, not for any image in which a character is damaged without feeling pain."

Additionally, I don't feel it to be right to use a meme tag for every character who are unfazed by their injuries, especially those with no reference to said meme.

I agree, though I didn’t suggest that the tag should be used for that purpose. I only used it as an example of some posts depicting a character who appears to not feel pain, to make my point that it’s possible to depict a character suffering a severe wound but who doesn’t appear to be affected by it. I was thinking of suggesting that we should have a tag for that concept separate from the meme tag, but that seemed tangential to the discussion, so I left that out.

As you have said, that is not what the wikis currently say:

• Firstly, minor_wound is when "a character sustains a slight wound."
• Secondly, severe_wound is when "a character sustains a potentially life-threatening wound."
• Thirdly, fatal_wound is when "a character is wounded so severely that they will certainly die." (<- this could mean either death or imminent_death, so it is not implied to a single one)

I think that would be dying rather than imminent_death. I think imminent death is more for situations where someone is about to be killed, or about to receive a fatal wound, not situations where they have already sustained a fatal wound and are dying from it. The difference would be between seeing a guillotine falling towards a character (imminent_death -wounded) and the moment immediately after the guillotine lands while the head is still alive (dying + fatal_wound).

Your argument is based on your new definition that a fatal_wound be "normally fatal under mostly any circumstances" and not that the actual character in the post not dying from it.

Yes, I did suggest that the wiki should be rewritten. I don’t think the way it’s currently written complies very well with TWYS. Here’s a thought experiment to elucidate my point:

Let’s say you have a two-panel comic. The first panel depicts a character being decapitated. The second one depicts the character after they’re completely dead. Fatal_wound, in its current state, applies just fine.

Now, let’s say we have the same post, but the second panel instead depicts the character regenerating a new head, apparently unfazed by the injury. Not fatal_wound, in its current state.

Ok, perhaps that’s fine, but now the problem comes when the two panels are in completely separate posts. We can’t carry over information from one post to the other; we have to analyze each post individually and tag accordingly. So, with the first post in the second example… how would we tag it? Fatal_wound, right? There’s nothing to suggest that the character won’t actually be killed by the wound - all we see is someone being decapitated. And, yet, you can clearly see the character surviving in the next panel, so you know it wasn’t a fatal wound. This raises the question of whether or not a fatal wound in any circumstance actually is fatal if you don’t have the second panel to confirm what happens after the injury. Something like that would always be fatal in real life, but can we really assume that when it comes to fictional characters/species? Besides being potentially a bit confusing, this also leaves a situation where a frame of a comic is tagged in a completely different way based on whether the second panel is included in the same image or is put into a separate image. I don’t think that’s ideal if we can avoid it.

There is also the fact that the majority of fatal_wound posts probably don’t actually depict what happens after the injury, as most aren’t comics or animations. Most of them, therefore, violate TWYS since you can’t see whether or not the character actually dies from the wound. This means that fatal_wound, as presently described, should be a very rare tag because it requires a post-wound depiction of the character fully dead and not just in the process of dying. If that were to be the case, it could also just imply death, but I feel like we’re begging for mistags at that point.

Hence why I think my alternate description of the tag would solve all these problems. Any wound that would normally be fatal gets the tag. That way we don’t have to worry about edge cases like characters with regenerative abilities, or characters who can simply survive as living severed heads or whatever.

This definition is also more in line with how imminent death is used. Note that the wiki says it’s for situations in which the character will most likely die. It doesn’t require the death to be confirmed - just that, under normal circumstances, the situation would cause death. We’d almost never be able to use the tag if it required confirmation of the character’s actual death, which is what it would be asking for if “most likely” was left out of the description - or if it had the same wording as fatal wound, “that they will certainly die.”

In addition, would all three of these tags be mutually exclusive (i.e., tagged together)? If decapitation implies fatal_wound (which can mean imminent_death or death), would death and wounded be mutually exclusive?

I think this situation actually presents a case in which it would be better to change the name of the tag to wound instead of wounded. The word “wounded” is generally applied only to living beings in common usage, whereas it is much more common to state that a corpse has a wound. In that case, having wound + death shouldn’t be a contradiction.

I cannot find relevant posts here on e621, but I can imagine such posts existing:

• Imagine Mimir from God of War but without needing to be resurrected later, effectively turning into a living, talking severed_head (and not that a detachable_head since it cannot be "reattached"). This would not fit fatal_wound in its current definition.
• Imagine the scene when Omni Man brutally beats Invincible to near death, he would be bruised and it would be considered as a "minor_wound".

You make a fair point about bruised. On the other hand, however, I think minor_wound and severe_wound don’t need to be mutually exclusive - a character can have both major and minor wounds. So, in that case, you could also apply severe_wound manually, as the character is also bleeding quite badly and that’s much more than “just” a bruise. “Just a bruise” is generally pretty minor. You can say for certain that the bruises on Invincible’s arms and legs are in fact minor wounds, so an image like that probably could have both minor and severe tags without any conflict since both are present.

However, it might be possible to have bruises that are in themselves severe, so perhaps it could just imply wounded (or wound) instead. Still, you can’t really determine the severity of a bruise from an image alone, since that type of damage is mostly internal. Most of the time, they are minor, and I don’t see how a severe bruise can be depicted in an image. Even if a character is bruised all over, they could be skin-deep bruises and thus not severe, whereas truly severe wounds indicate major internal bleeding and may not actually be that large on the outside. I think leaving it to imply minor_wound would probably still work just fine, though I suppose I’m more on the fence about that one.

scaliespe said:
Those are technically all wounded, yes. We tend to associate the word “wounded” with severe wounds in common usage of the word, but it makes more sense to use it here as an umbrella tag for wounds regardless of severity, since we have minor_wound and severe_wound to mark the severity. If someone gets a paper cut and says “I’m wounded,” we’d generally consider that to be an exaggeration, even comically so. However, the word “wound” doesn’t imply the severity, so it’s not incorrect. A paper cut, however minor, is still technically a wound, and a person with a paper cut is technically wounded. Besides, I can’t really think of a better umbrella tag for all wounds - besides just wound, which is essentially the same thing as wounded and faces the same issue of common usage.

Even something as small as the disturbance of the fur (i.e., post #2947478 & post #2643323) or reddening of the skin after someone slaps/pinches (or scratch/bite marks) it, without any outward damage? What about the case with scars, which are also supposed to be "healed wounds"?

If both of this cases are considered wounded, then I suppose I have no other arguments against it.

I agree, though I didn’t suggest that the tag should be used for that purpose. I only used it as an example of some posts depicting a character who appears to not feel pain, to make my point that it’s possible to depict a character suffering a severe wound but who doesn’t appear to be affected by it. I was thinking of suggesting that we should have a tag for that concept separate from the meme tag, but that seemed tangential to the discussion, so I left that out.

A tag will eventually need to be suggested for that purpose then.

I think that would be dying rather than imminent_death. ... “that they will certainly die.”

Alright, if minor_wound, severe_wound, and fatal_wound can concurrently be tagged as well as not requiring to see the actual status of the character being featured in the post, then go right ahead.

I think this situation actually presents a case in which it would be better to change the name of the tag to wound instead of wounded. The word “wounded” is generally applied only to living beings in common usage, whereas it is much more common to state that a corpse has a wound. In that case, having wound + death shouldn’t be a contradiction.

If a rename needs to be done, it best be made before this BUR gets passed since you will need to unimply everything and start over.

You make a fair point about bruised. On the other hand, however, I think minor_wound and severe_wound don’t need to be mutually exclusive - a character can have both major and minor wounds. So, in that case, you could also apply severe_wound manually, as the character is also bleeding quite badly and that’s much more than “just” a bruise. “Just a bruise” is generally pretty minor. You can say for certain that the bruises on Invincible’s arms and legs are in fact minor wounds, so an image like that probably could have both minor and severe tags without any conflict since both are present.

However, it might be possible to have bruises that are in themselves severe, so perhaps it could just imply wounded (or wound) instead. Still, you can’t really determine the severity of a bruise from an image alone, since that type of damage is mostly internal. Most of the time, they are minor, and I don’t see how a severe bruise can be depicted in an image. Even if a character is bruised all over, they could be skin-deep bruises and thus not severe, whereas truly severe wounds indicate major internal bleeding and may not actually be that large on the outside. I think leaving it to imply minor_wound would probably still work just fine, though I suppose I’m more on the fence about that one.

I believe it should be implied to wounded as opposed to minor_wound. Just like a burn, from a simple first-degree burn from boiling water to a full-body third-degree burn from napalm; bruised can range from a small purple spot on the body from getting punched to a full-body bruising from getting attacked by a mob.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Even something as small as the disturbance of the fur (i.e., post #2947478 & post #2643323) or reddening of the skin after someone slaps/pinches (or scratch/bite marks) it, without any outward damage? What about the case with scars, which are also supposed to be "healed wounds"?

If both of this cases are considered wounded, then I suppose I have no other arguments against it.

My issue with these is that I don't really think a mere disturbance of the fur should count for either scratches or bite marks. Perhaps the wound exists underneath the fur, but you can't see it, so I'm not convinced it should get the scratches tag which seems to be intended for when something has actually been cut. That one just looks to me like an indent caused by pressing into the skin.
From the scratches wiki:
tiny lacerations (cuts) on the skin
So, yeah, I'd just remove the tag for that one.

The bite marks on the second one look pretty deep, I'd personally call that a minor injury. Even if you can't see blood, it seems obvious that the character actually has been bitten, which would be an injury.

I don't think simple reddening of the skin should be considered a wound or a scratch or anything else. If it's not a bruise, and there's no scratch marks/visible damage, I wouldn't tag it.

I'm not sure I'd personally include scars as wounds - I fell like people would be looking for these concepts separately for the most part. However, I also don't think things like bite_marks or scratches should count as scars - it'd make more sense to have a bite_scar tag if that ever becomes something we need a tag for. Otherwise, just tag it as scar. Similarly, I don't think anyone searching bite_mark actually wants to find a scar of an old bite_mark - that's a rather different thing entirely.

thegreatwolfgang said:
If a rename needs to be done, it best be made before this BUR gets passed since you will need to unimply everything and start over.

I'd like to have some more people opine on that one before going ahead with changing the name, since that's a fairly major tag. Hopefully any admin who might approve this reads the whole thread first.

scaliespe said:
My issue with these is that I don't really think a mere disturbance of the fur should count for either scratches or bite marks...

What would be an appropriate tag for the first post then? There's obviously a "bite" there. And I can even extend to the possibility of other posts featuring scratch marks on fur (e.g., post #3067405).

You had also mentioned that the scratches wiki states "tiny lacerations (cuts) on the skin", should we avoid scratches on fur and scales then?

What if the scratch and bite marks were left on something hard like thick scales or on a horn?

I don't think simple reddening of the skin should be considered a wound or a scratch or anything else. If it's not a bruise, and there's no scratch marks/visible damage, I wouldn't tag it.

Then bite_marks & scratches should be of actual visible damage then? Where do we draw the line between surface damage and just an claw/teeth indent?

I'm not sure I'd personally include scars as wounds - I fell like people would be looking for these concepts separately for the most part. However, I also don't think things like bite_marks or scratches should count as scars - it'd make more sense to have a bite_scar tag if that ever becomes something we need a tag for. Otherwise, just tag it as scar. Similarly, I don't think anyone searching bite_mark actually wants to find a scar of an old bite_mark - that's a rather different thing entirely.

It would be worth noting that the bite_mark wiki also states "a mark, typically a bruise scar or indent, left when one partner bites another."
Although bruising and scarring are two different things, I can imagine it is meant to convey both.
In addition, the scratches wiki also uses scar as one of their example thumbnails, meaning that it could expand into that as well.

If we were to separate injuries with scarring, I would think that we would need to create a counterpart tag for most of the injuries out there (similar to slit_(wound) & slit_(scar) though the latter seems to have been nuked/in disuse).
Then there is the question of burns, how does one differentiate a healing scar and that from an immediate burn?

I'd like to have some more people opine on that one before going ahead with changing the name, since that's a fairly major tag. Hopefully any admin who might approve this reads the whole thread first.

Fair enough, I really do hope others also chip into the discussion since we are basically making interpretations of the various wikis on our own.

thegreatwolfgang said:
What would be an appropriate tag for the first post then? There's obviously a "bite" there. And I can even extend to the possibility of other posts featuring scratch marks on fur (e.g., post #3067405).

I didn’t really recognize those circular shapes in the fur as bite marks, exactly. If the character has been bitten, then, sure.

The second one is difficult. I mean, a “scratch” by any reasonable definition requires something being cut. If the only thing that’s happening in that image is that the fur is being parted, that’s not a scratch. I don’t see any blood or any exposed flesh, but it looks fairly deep, and claws are involved. It might be reasonable to assume that the flesh beneath the fur is being cut, but I think I’d lean more towards “if I can’t see an actual cut, I don’t tag it.”

You had also mentioned that the scratches wiki states "tiny lacerations (cuts) on the skin", should we avoid scratches on fur and scales then?

What if the scratch and bite marks were left on something hard like thick scales or on a horn?

I think it’s fair to count scales as skin in this context. It’s essentially a layer over the skin.

Fur grows out of skin, and fur itself cannot be “scratched.” There would have to either be visible flesh, or some evidence of an actual scratch, like blood.

It’s worth noting, however, that furries often draw things on top of fur even when it wouldn’t be psychically possible, like blush. In that case, it’s fine if a cut is drawn on top of the fur, even if that doesn’t make any logical sense.

I’m not sure about horns. Does horn damage count as an injury? In some animals, the horn is an integral part - in others, it’s dead matter more like hair, and is sometimes shed or broken without harming the animal. I’d say if we can count the damage as an injury, then yes, scratches and bites should apply.

Then bite_marks & scratches should be of actual visible damage then? Where do we draw the line between surface damage and just an claw/teeth indent?

I’d like to think that these tags are intended for situations where a character has actually been seriously bitten or clawed at - that seems like the basic use case for searching or blacklisting. There is, of course, going to be some grey area where you can’t really tell if it’s actually an injury or just a disturbance of the fur or whatever.

It would be worth noting that the bite_mark wiki also states "a mark, typically a bruise scar or indent, left when one partner bites another."
Although bruising and scarring are two different things, I can imagine it is meant to convey both.
In addition, the scratches wiki also uses scar as one of their example thumbnails, meaning that it could expand into that as well.

Right. I would be more inclined to change those as per my belief about the most likely use case for these tags as I stated above.

As an aside, I wonder if it might be worthwhile to have at least two tags for bites; one for just the mark regardless of what it’s on, and another new tag for actual bite injuries (bite_wound) that implies (bite_mark). Perhaps for scratches as well. I see people using these tags for bites or scratches even on inanimate objects despite what the wiki pages say. That could also handle these edge cases where it may or may not be an actual wound - use scratch_mark instead of scratch_wound - something like that.

If we were to separate injuries with scarring, I would think that we would need to create a counterpart tag for most of the injuries out there (similar to slit_(wound) & slit_(scar) though the latter seems to have been nuked/in disuse).
Then there is the question of burns, how does one differentiate a healing scar and that from an immediate burn?

I’m honestly not too sure how to recognize burns without there being some other evidence of heat in the image itself, like an open flame or a live stove. Some burns just produce blisters, in which case you could probably tag blister instead.

As for scars, I’d put them in the mark tags rather than the wound tags as per my above suggestion.

scaliespe said:
I didn’t really recognize those circular shapes in the fur as bite marks, exactly. If the character has been bitten, then, sure.

The second one is difficult. I mean, a “scratch” by any reasonable definition requires something being cut. If the only thing that’s happening in that image is that the fur is being parted, that’s not a scratch. I don’t see any blood or any exposed flesh, but it looks fairly deep, and claws are involved. It might be reasonable to assume that the flesh beneath the fur is being cut, but I think I’d lean more towards “if I can’t see an actual cut, I don’t tag it.”

I think it’s fair to count scales as skin in this context. It’s essentially a layer over the skin.

Fur grows out of skin, and fur itself cannot be “scratched.” There would have to either be visible flesh, or some evidence of an actual scratch, like blood.

It’s worth noting, however, that furries often draw things on top of fur even when it wouldn’t be psychically possible, like blush. In that case, it’s fine if a cut is drawn on top of the fur, even if that doesn’t make any logical sense.

I’m not sure about horns. Does horn damage count as an injury? In some animals, the horn is an integral part - in others, it’s dead matter more like hair, and is sometimes shed or broken without harming the animal. I’d say if we can count the damage as an injury, then yes, scratches and bites should apply.

I’d like to think that these tags are intended for situations where a character has actually been seriously bitten or clawed at - that seems like the basic use case for searching or blacklisting. There is, of course, going to be some grey area where you can’t really tell if it’s actually an injury or just a disturbance of the fur or whatever.

That is where I disagree with you. I believe damage (i.e., being able to see exposed flesh and blood) is not a necessary component when tagging scratches and bite_marks.

A character can have their fur completely torn off through scratches and bite marks (therefore leaving a visible outline) but not break the skin to reveal flesh and blood (barring the case bruises appear later to show internal damage).
Likewise, the damage can equally be done to scales and horn, even very deeply, and still not wound the character in the traditional sense. It will just be a visible indentation on their body.

I also do believe that the current definition of scratches is too narrow when compared to its singular counterpart, scratch.
The scratch wiki states "can refer to two things: the act of marking superficially something or someone using nails, claws or a sharp object; or the resulting mark/wound."

Is it too farfetched to believe that superficial markings should be included for the plural scratches tag as well?
People should tag wounded when it does cause actual wounding damage, and not choose to ignore visible scratch/bite marks when it does not "injure" the character.

Right. I would be more inclined to change those as per my belief about the most likely use case for these tags as I stated above.

As an aside, I wonder if it might be worthwhile to have at least two tags for bites; one for just the mark regardless of what it’s on, and another new tag for actual bite injuries (bite_wound) that implies (bite_mark). Perhaps for scratches as well. I see people using these tags for bites or scratches even on inanimate objects despite what the wiki pages say. That could also handle these edge cases where it may or may not be an actual wound - use scratch_mark instead of scratch_wound - something like that.

I feel that it would be a good idea to separate out the scratch/bite marks to different tags, such as *_mark and *_wound to differentiate between inanimate/non-wounding and wounding damage.
However, I fear that in doing so, there won't be a way to differentiate between marks on object and non-wounding marks on characters, which I will bring back up below.

I’m honestly not too sure how to recognize burns without there being some other evidence of heat in the image itself, like an open flame or a live stove. Some burns just produce blisters, in which case you could probably tag blister instead.

As for scars, I’d put them in the mark tags rather than the wound tags as per my above suggestion.

I think that it might not be a bad idea to reintroduce the various scar types since on the scratch wiki, it also states:
"Not to be confused with scar, which is a cicatrised wound, often, caused by a similar process, but not so superficial."

It might be better to leave burn as is though since there is no easy way to differentiate between burn wound and burn scar in artworks.

However, scars should not be placed in the mark category since it may also include damage to objects. Perhaps if we included subcategories and had a third type for scars specifically?

thegreatwolfgang said:

I also do believe that the current definition of scratches is too narrow when compared to its singular counterpart, scratch.
The scratch wiki states "can refer to two things: the act of marking superficially something or someone using nails, claws or a sharp object; or the resulting mark/wound."

Wait, why are scratch and scratches two separate tags…? That should be an alias, no?

I think this is a good solution. Though, I do think the wounds should imply the *_mark tags as well, as I think the only way you can tell that any given wound is a bite or scratch is due to the shape of it.

scaliespe said:
Wait, why are scratch and scratches two separate tags…? That should be an alias, no?

I think it was meant to be the action rather than the outcome, i.e., the act of scratching.
That is also why I am proposing the scratching tag for the action, while possibly aliasing scratch and scratches (not before mass updating) away to scratch_(disambiguation). Same with biting later on.

I think this is a good solution. Though, I do think the wounds should imply the *_mark tags as well, as I think the only way you can tell that any given wound is a bite or scratch is due to the shape of it.

Alright, I was unsure at first whether to include *_wound into *_mark since it might make clearly defining it harder, but I think we can implement a "tag also if..." scenario for the tag (therefore making it an umbrella tag for all types of marking left behind).

Alright, so… I suppose if AchtungMaybe is still here, they could edit the BUR to reflect these changes? Otherwise we may need a new BUR.

scaliespe said:
Alright, so… I suppose if AchtungMaybe is still here, they could edit the BUR to reflect these changes? Otherwise we may need a new BUR.

will do in a bit - just a tad busy rn but i'll get to it soon

achtungmaybe said:
will do in a bit - just a tad busy rn but i'll get to it soon

Just remove:
imply bruised -> minor_wound (because it can range from mild to fatal)
imply burn -> wounded (because it can be both injury and scars)
imply scratches -> wounded (pending disambiguation)
imply bite_mark -> wounded (pending disambiguation)

And add:
imply bruised -> wounded

I will suggest the scratches/bite_mark disambiguation on a separate thread.

Acktchually…

I hate to do it, but there are a few other things I have to point out.

Firstly, the suggestions I made in my first reply to this thread, I believe, should also be made. As a reminder:

(Changes italicized)

scaliespe said:
I’m not sure amputation can be considered a wound since it is often done surgically, and for proper medical reasons. I don’t think surgery counts for wounded, exactly… does it? I think dismemberment is the right tag to use when a limb is removed via injury, whereas amputation makes more sense for non-injury surgical limb removals.

I’m also not sure that bullet wound counts as severe in all cases, it might be better to leave that to just wounded. Very small caliber bullets and shots to extremities like fingers might not count as severe… there’s also wounds caused by a bullet “grazing” the skin, which would also be pretty minor, such as post #3101137.

Also, you missed one that I saw: imply slit_wrists -> slit_(wound)

Furthermore, a few more things I’ve noticed:

• disembowelment doesn’t seem to be here. I think that one would be safely implicated to fatal wound. Similarly to decapitation, nobody can lose their bowels and survive under normal circumstances.

• pussy wound, penis wound, and ball wound should all imply genital wound. Maybe also ballbusting -> ball wound?

And, finally:

thegreatwolfgang said:
imply burn -> wounded (because it can be both injury and scars)

I’ve done a bit of burn research, and now I do think burn scars can be sufficiently distinguished from live burns. Now the question is whether we need to disambiguate burn or not. Currently it seems to be used with a mix of burns and burn scars, so it’ll probably need a big cleanup. However, perhaps creating a burn_scar tag along with a note in the wiki might be all we need… what do you think?

Edit: burn scar already exists, and it already implies scar. The burn wiki doesn’t even mention the existence of this tag, which may have helped with a lot of the mistags… but I’m not sure, a disambiguation might still be needed. If you think so, perhaps include that in your scratches/bite marks BUR? Then there’s the question of the tag name… burn_wound or maybe just burned? live_burn? That last one might be the least ambiguous option, but it also doesn’t seem like a very obvious name…

A bit of an aside, but now that I look at the current tagging situation, I think a little burn BUR would be useful for implying the various burn tags to a parent burn tag. However, I can’t do that until I know if we’re keeping burn as-is or disambiguating it.

Huh, seem to have missed some of your comments.

scaliespe said:
I think dismemberment is the right tag to use when a limb is removed via injury, whereas amputation makes more sense for non-injury surgical limb removals.

I feel that amputation is used to describe the act while dismemberment is the outcome of said act.

I’m also not sure that bullet wound counts as severe in all cases, it might be better to leave that to just wounded ... there’s also wounds caused by a bullet “grazing” the skin, which would also be pretty minor, such as post #3101137.

I agree with implying bullet_wound to wounded, instead of severe_wound.

I’ve done a bit of burn research, and now I do think burn scars can be sufficiently distinguished from live burns. Now the question is whether we need to disambiguate burn or not. Currently it seems to be used with a mix of burns and burn scars, so it’ll probably need a big cleanup. However, perhaps creating a burn_scar tag along with a note in the wiki might be all we need… what do you think?

Edit: burn scar already exists, and it already implies scar. The burn wiki doesn’t even mention the existence of this tag, which may have helped with a lot of the mistags… but I’m not sure, a disambiguation might still be needed. If you think so, perhaps include that in your scratches/bite marks BUR? Then there’s the question of the tag name… burn_wound or maybe just burned? live_burn? That last one might be the least ambiguous option, but it also doesn’t seem like a very obvious name…

A bit of an aside, but now that I look at the current tagging situation, I think a little burn BUR would be useful for implying the various burn tags to a parent burn tag. However, I can’t do that until I know if we’re keeping burn as-is or disambiguating it.

I would agree with aliasing burn to burn_(disambiguation) since other sorts of burns can exist; e.g., burning fur/hair/clothing w/o any actual damage, burning objects, getting "burnt/roasted" by a verbal quip.

As for live burn wounds, I feel that burn_wound would be better and more inline with the other *_wound tags.

thegreatwolfgang said:

I feel that amputation is used to describe the act while dismemberment is the outcome of said act.

Perhaps, but… 1. even if that is the case, should it be the case? No other injury tags have two distinct terms for the act and the outcome, do they? And 2. looking through both tags, that doesn’t seem to be how they’re being used overall. Might be too confusing for people to keep straight. Oh, and 3. the tag for the aftermath of an amputation should be amputee. The dismemberment wiki also mentions using amputee for the aftermath, after the wound has healed - presumably because you can’t tell the difference.

Looking through the amputation tag now, though, I can’t really find any “medical” amputations. Most of the results are a confused mix of dismemberment and amputee (without showing the actual amputation/dismemberment). Might be better to just alias that one away to amputee?

As for live burn wounds, I feel that burn_wound would be better and more inline with the other *_wound tags.

I thought so initially, but I’m hesitant to stick with that since burn wound has already been tagged on four posts, and all of them are actually just burn_scars. So, maybe that one needs a less ambiguous term like live burn to avoid mistags.

scaliespe said:
Perhaps, but… 1. even if that is the case, should it be the case? No other injury tags have two distinct terms for the act and the outcome, do they? And 2. looking through both tags, that doesn’t seem to be how they’re being used overall. Might be too confusing for people to keep straight. Oh, and 3. the tag for the aftermath of an amputation should be amputee. The dismemberment wiki also mentions using amputee for the aftermath, after the wound has healed - presumably because you can’t tell the difference.

Looking through the amputation tag now, though, I can’t really find any “medical” amputations. Most of the results are a confused mix of dismemberment and amputee (without showing the actual amputation/dismemberment). Might be better to just alias that one away to amputee?

I believe it would be useful to have an action tag and an outcome tag in this case, just like with biting/scratching and bite_wound/scratch_wound.

Dismemberment seems to be in a weird state of being unique in on itself and being used as an alias for amputation. While amputee is used as a "disability" tag rather than a direct outcome tag.

I feel that it should be differentiated so that:

• Amputation is the act of limb removal; i.e., limbs in the process of getting ripped off, surgically removed, etc. Tagged with wounded.
• Dismemberment is the "direct" outcome of limb removal; i.e., heavily bleeding wounds and missing limbs, add severed_* when applicable. Tagged with wounded or death.
• Amputee is just a character who experienced past amputations; i.e., normally with fully-healed stumps and equipped with prosthetics. Not wounded.

I thought so initially, but I’m hesitant to stick with that since burn wound has already been tagged on four posts, and all of them are actually just burn_scars. So, maybe that one needs a less ambiguous term like live burn to avoid mistags.

Perhaps, but you have to consider that it was tagged before an actual wiki definition was put in, so once we clarify the differences we can start to put it to proper use.
I also like the naming standardisation as to decrease any confusion with other tags, and live_burn sounds like it's describing someone getting burnt alive instead.

If mistags are frequent even after differentiating them, then we can opt to rename it to something more specific.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I feel that it should be differentiated so that:

• Amputation is the act of limb removal; i.e., limbs in the process of getting ripped off, surgically removed, etc. Tagged with wounded.
• Dismemberment is the "direct" outcome of limb removal; i.e., heavily bleeding wounds and missing limbs, add severed_* when applicable. Tagged with wounded or death.
• Amputee is just a character who experienced past amputations; i.e., normally with fully-healed stumps and equipped with prosthetics. Not wounded.

This seems reasonable. The current tags will still need a cleanup, plus I feel like there is still going to be some mistagging by people who don’t read wikis, but this sounds like a good way to handle these tags overall. They’re not used very extensively, so the occasional minor cleanup of the tags if necessary should be easy enough.

Would you think that amputation and dismemberment are mutually exclusive? And if not, perhaps amputation should imply dismemberment? I imagine any post depicting the active amputation of limbs also depicts dismemberment, but there can be post-amputation images showing already dead or dying characters/severed limbs etc. that count for dismemberment but not amputation.

Perhaps severed limb can also imply dismemberment.

Perhaps, but you have to consider that it was tagged before an actual wiki definition was put in, so once we clarify the differences we can start to put it to proper use.
I also like the naming standardisation as to decrease any confusion with other tags, and live_burn sounds like it's describing someone getting burnt alive instead.

If mistags are frequent even after differentiating them, then we can opt to rename it to something more specific.

Fair enough. It’s such a rarely used tag that any cleanup needed likely won’t be very difficult anyway.

scaliespe said:
This seems reasonable. The current tags will still need a cleanup, plus I feel like there is still going to be some mistagging by people who don’t read wikis, but this sounds like a good way to handle these tags overall. They’re not used very extensively, so the occasional minor cleanup of the tags if necessary should be easy enough.

Would you think that amputation and dismemberment are mutually exclusive? And if not, perhaps amputation should imply dismemberment? I imagine any post depicting the active amputation of limbs also depicts dismemberment, but there can be post-amputation images showing already dead or dying characters/severed limbs etc. that count for dismemberment but not amputation.

Perhaps severed limb can also imply dismemberment..

I had considered disambiguating dismemberment in the past for being ambiguous, but it got shot down rather quickly due to there not having multiple tags named "dismemberment". In other words, disambiguation shouldn't come as a means to get people to tag correctly using other tags. See topic #27731 for more.

I believe amputation and dismemberment can exist together in posts where you can see the actual cutting and the actual wound/stump. However, not all amputations can you see the actual dismemberment; e.g., you can see an animal chomping on an arm/hand then ripping it off the character off-sceeen, with the severed_limb in their maw but no actual stump/wound of the character be visible.

Likewise, I had considered implying severed_limb to dismemberment in the last thread I mentioned, but I came to realise that the severed limbs themselves can be off-screen as evident by the example thumbnail on the dismemberment wiki.
It is important to note again that an amputee is a character with a disability and not wounded.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I had considered disambiguating dismemberment in the past for being ambiguous, but it got shot down rather quickly due to there not having multiple tags named "dismemberment". In other words, disambiguation shouldn't come as a means to get people to tag correctly using other tags. See topic #27731 for more.

I believe amputation and dismemberment can exist together in posts where you can see the actual cutting and the actual wound/stump. However, not all amputations can you see the actual dismemberment; e.g., you can see an animal chomping on an arm/hand then ripping it off the character off-sceeen, with the severed_limb in their maw but no actual stump/wound of the character be visible.

Likewise, I had considered implying severed_limb to dismemberment in the last thread I mentioned, but I came to realise that the severed limbs themselves can be off-screen as evident by the example thumbnail on the dismemberment wiki.
It is important to note again that an amputee is a character with a disability and not wounded.

Right. That thread is interesting in light of the current discussion. The consensus there seemed to be that dismemberment was specifically the gory form of amputation, but - presumably - dismemberment could imply amputation? If I understood correctly, anyway, it seemed the idea was to use amputation as the parent tag for any limb removal, whereas dismemberment was specially violent limb removals. I’m not 100% sure what I think about that, but it might make some sense. Regardless of that, though, it did just occur to me that in order to use the dismemberment tag how you propose, it should actually be renamed to dismembered. The word “dismemberment” describes the action itself, the same as “amputation,” whereas the past tense form of the word indicates the condition of limbs having been removed. In fact, amputated would indicate the same thing. I think I’d just prefer to swap dismemberment out for amputated in that idea. That way, the whole thing can use the same base word.

Then, if we accept that, it leaves the question of what to do with dismemberment. Leaving it to specifically gory amputations might still make sense… however, I have another idea.

Something seemed off about using dismemberment to refer just to a single limb being chopped off, no matter how gory. It didn’t quite fit with my general idea of the word’s meaning. I thought it was more like someone being torn into a bunch of pieces rather than just, say, losing a finger. However, I thought I might have been mistaking a connotation for the denotation. I went to look it up:

Dictionary.com says:

1. to deprive of limbs; divide limb from limb:
The ogre dismembered his victims before he ate them.
2. to divide into parts; cut to pieces; mutilate.

No mention of losing single limbs or body parts. The word seems to actually refer to someone being torn into pieces. So, this gave me an idea. Here’s the layout I’m proposing:

• amputation - any depiction of the act of any body part being removed from a character. Includes minor parts like fingers. Implies severe_wound.
• amputated - any character that has just been amputated, whether or not the limbs are still visible or the act itself has been shown. The focus of the tag is on a character that has just lost a body part - there should be a visible bloody stump or something where it once was. Implies severe_wound.
• amputee - any character who is left disabled due to having lost body parts in the past - implies disability, not injury.
• dismemberment - any depiction of the act of a character being reduced to several pieces. This should indicate that at least two major body parts are being removed - any limb, head, large tails, wings, large parts of the torso, etc. Simply removing a bunch of fingers and toes wouldn’t qualify. Possibly implies amputation?
• dismembered - any character that has just been dismembered, whether or not the limbs are still visible or the act itself has been shown. Possibly implies amputated?

scaliespe said:
Right. That thread is interesting in light of the current discussion...

Yes, the consensus was that amputation means controlled & surgical removal of limbs while dismemberment means violent & often fatal removal of limbs.
For pure accuracy of terms, however, it is much more complicated. I will explain in the next section and it may give you a headache.

But my opinions still stand on having both an action tag for the "removal of limbs", and the outcome tag for the unhealed/wounded outcome of limb removal.

No mention of losing single limbs or body parts. The word seems to actually refer to someone being torn into pieces.

This whole section I have written is optional and you can choose to ignore it in the context of e621 definitions if you want.

• Dismemberment traditionally refers to the violent removal of limbs rather than random chunks of body parts, but some people have proposed that dismemberment be broader and includes the removal head (depacitation), torso, pelvis, alongside the limbs. I'm not sure if this distinction is widely being accepted yet, but it still leaves the question of having a tag for "the removal of limbs specifically" unanswered.
• They also defined mutilation to be "the removal or irreparable disfigurement, by any means, of some smaller portion of one of those larger sections of a living or dead person", and include acts such as the removal of the testes (castration), internal organs (evisceration), and skin (flaying).
• On a separate note, amputation traditionally means the removal of a limb, be it violent or otherwise, but it can also include a very broad range of removals such as the amputations of ears, nose (rhinotomy), tongue (glossectomy), eyes (enucleation), teeth (dental avulsion), breasts (mastectomy), testicles (castration), penis (penectomy), foreskin (circumcision), and clitoris (clitoridectomy).
• As an extra note, causes of amputation can include "natural" amputations (by lack of oxygen, frostbite, infection, disease, etc.), trauma (by accidents, attacks, etc.), and finally surgery (voluntary or involuntary).

Tl;dr: Accurate definition of dismemberment includes removal of head, limbs, torso, pelvis, etc. Mutilation and amputation more or less describes the same thing (i.e., the removal of something).

• amputation - any depiction of the act of any body part being removed from a character. Includes minor parts like fingers. Implies severe_wound.
• amputated - any character that has just been amputated, whether or not the limbs are still visible or the act itself has been shown. The focus of the tag is on a character that has just lost a body part - there should be a visible bloody stump or something where it once was. Implies severe_wound.
• amputee - any character who is left disabled due to having lost body parts in the past - implies disability, not injury.
• dismemberment - any depiction of the act of a character being reduced to several pieces. This should indicate that at least two major body parts are being removed - any limb, head, large tails, wings, large parts of the torso, etc. Simply removing a bunch of fingers and toes wouldn’t qualify. Possibly implies amputation?
• dismembered - any character that has just been dismembered, whether or not the limbs are still visible or the act itself has been shown. Possibly implies amputated?

I feel that:

• For amputation, the mention of "any body part" needs to be more specific. My suggestion is for it can be defined as the act of removing limbs and other major extremities (i.e., arm/hands/fingers, legs/feet/toes, wings, tail, and tentacle, but excludes head, breasts, and genitals), otherwise it would include other body parts such as breasts (mastectomy), foreskin (castration), etc.
• For amputated, I agree with your general idea of having an immediate outcome tag for amputations.
• For amputee, I agree with your general idea of having a post-injury healed outcome tag for amputations.
• For dismemberment, it can be defined as the act of removing of any large body parts in general (e.g., head, limb, wing, tail, etc.), rather than being vague with by "being reduced to several pieces" and limited to two body parts. Decapitation, amputation, docked_tail (tail removal), amputated_wing/wing_amputation can come as separate companion tags (the latter two will need counterpart tags for dismemberment).
• For dismembered, I agree with your general idea of having an immediate outcome tag for dismemberments.

Edit: Scrapping my ideas for amputation & dismemberment for now, we need to discuss the implications of including "any body part" (including non-limb body parts, from large ones like head, breasts, genitals, tail, wings, to small ones like flesh_whiskers, ears, tongue, etc.). Ask yourself questions like: "Would it be accurate to refer to a multi_head character who amputated one of their heads as an amputee?"

thegreatwolfgang said:
Just remove:
imply bruised -> minor_wound (because it can range from mild to fatal)
imply burn -> wounded (because it can be both injury and scars)
imply scratches -> wounded (pending disambiguation)
imply bite_mark -> wounded (pending disambiguation)

And add:
imply bruised -> wounded

I will suggest the scratches/bite_mark disambiguation on a separate thread.

done

achtungmaybe said:
done

You might want to also check what @scaliespe had suggested.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Yes, the consensus was that amputation means controlled & surgical removal of limbs while dismemberment means violent & often fatal removal of limbs.
For pure accuracy of terms, however, it is much more complicated. I will explain in the next section and it may give you a headache.

But my opinions still stand on having both an action tag for the "removal of limbs", and the outcome tag for the unhealed/wounded outcome of limb removal.

This whole section I have written is optional and you can choose to ignore it in the context of e621 definitions if you want.

• Dismemberment traditionally refers to the violent removal of limbs rather than random chunks of body parts, but some people have proposed that dismemberment be broader and includes the removal head (depacitation), torso, pelvis, alongside the limbs. I'm not sure if this distinction is widely being accepted yet, but it still leaves the question of having a tag for "the removal of limbs specifically" unanswered.
• They also defined mutilation to be "the removal or irreparable disfigurement, by any means, of some smaller portion of one of those larger sections of a living or dead person", and include acts such as the removal of the testes (castration), internal organs (evisceration), and skin (flaying).
• On a separate note, amputation traditionally means the removal of a limb, be it violent or otherwise, but it can also include a very broad range of removals such as the amputations of ears, nose (rhinotomy), tongue (glossectomy), eyes (enucleation), teeth (dental avulsion), breasts (mastectomy), testicles (castration), penis (penectomy), foreskin (circumcision), and clitoris (clitoridectomy).
• As an extra note, causes of amputation can include "natural" amputations (by lack of oxygen, frostbite, infection, disease, etc.), trauma (by accidents, attacks, etc.), and finally surgery (voluntary or involuntary).

Tl;dr: Accurate definition of dismemberment includes removal of head, limbs, torso, pelvis, etc. Mutilation and amputation more or less describes the same thing (i.e., the removal of something).

I feel that:

• For amputation, the mention of "any body part" needs to be more specific. My suggestion is for it can be defined as the act of removing limbs and other major extremities (i.e., arm/hands/fingers, legs/feet/toes, wings, tail, and tentacle, but excludes head, breasts, and genitals), otherwise it would include other body parts such as breasts (mastectomy), foreskin (castration), etc.
• For amputated, I agree with your general idea of having an immediate outcome tag for amputations.
• For amputee, I agree with your general idea of having a post-injury healed outcome tag for amputations.
• For dismemberment, it can be defined as the act of removing of any large body parts in general (e.g., head, limb, wing, tail, etc.), rather than being vague with by "being reduced to several pieces" and limited to two body parts. Decapitation, amputation, docked_tail (tail removal), amputated_wing/wing_amputation can come as separate companion tags (the latter two will need counterpart tags for dismemberment).
• For dismembered, I agree with your general idea of having an immediate outcome tag for dismemberments.

Okay, let’s try something else.

• amputation - any depiction of the act of any limb or digit being removed from a character. Implies severe_wound.
• amputated - any character that has just been amputated, whether or not the limbs are still visible or the act itself has been shown. The focus of the tag is on a character that has just lost a body part - there should be a visible bloody stump or something where it once was. Implies severe_wound.
• amputee - any character who is left disabled due to having lost body parts in the past - implies disability, not injury.
• dismemberment - what if we redefine this to refer only to the removal of all limbs? Head optional. It would be much more focused a tag at that point. Possibly have it not imply amputated, rather.
• dismembered - any character that has just been dismembered, whether or not the limbs are still visible or the act itself has been shown.
• mutilation - we could define this as the removal of part of any body part without removing the whole thing. This is also a somewhat more focused definition, but it’s one that still fits within the common usage of the word.

Edit: Scrapping my ideas for amputation & dismemberment for now, we need to discuss the implications of including "any body part" (including non-limb body parts, from large ones like head, breasts, genitals, tail, wings, to small ones like flesh_whiskers, ears, tongue, etc.). Ask yourself questions like: "Would it be accurate to refer to a multi_head character who amputated one of their heads as an amputee?"

As above, I think it would be fair to only have it include limbs and digits (including tails/wings as well) and to keep the smaller parts limited to tags specific to those things.

As for the multi-headed character situation, I’d rather not call that amputation regardless of the number of heads, instead using the decapitation tag specifically for that. It’s an odd situation as multi-headed characters are generally considered to be one individual for each head, so the loss of one head is not so much an amputation as it is the (likely) death of one of the heads.

scaliespe said:
Okay, let’s try something else.

• amputation - any depiction of the act of any limb or digit being removed from a character. Implies severe_wound.
• amputated - any character that has just been amputated, whether or not the limbs are still visible or the act itself has been shown. The focus of the tag is on a character that has just lost a body part - there should be a visible bloody stump or something where it once was. Implies severe_wound.
• amputee - any character who is left disabled due to having lost body parts in the past - implies disability, not injury.
• dismemberment - what if we redefine this to refer only to the removal of all limbs? Head optional. It would be much more focused a tag at that point. Possibly have it not imply amputated, rather.
• dismembered - any character that has just been dismembered, whether or not the limbs are still visible or the act itself has been shown.
• mutilation - we could define this as the removal of part of any body part without removing the whole thing. This is also a somewhat more focused definition, but it’s one that still fits within the common usage of the word.

I'm reluctant on approaching mutilation due to its rather broad definition, accurately it should include "complete or partial removals" OR "irreversible damage", which means that it can range from shredding a body with a chainsaw to something as simple as circumcision (with implies genital_mutilation). It would also be hard to determine which "part of the body" is the focus; e.g., an amputation of the finger would be a mutilation of the hand.

Putting that aside, I can agree with how amputation is being defined, which includes limbs, digits, tails, wings, or any other appendages/extremities that a character can possess (including tentacles, flesh whiskers, fins, etc.).

However, for dismemberment I'm still rather stumped, again having to count number of limbs won't be useful, seeing that someone can experience (almost) full-body dismemberment and decapitation but still possess one untouched limb. Perhaps we could have subtags (like limb_dismemberment) and include removal through violent means as a criteria?

That way, amputation can be the general removal of limbs tag (be it violent or not), and have dismemberment be the violent removal of any large body part (which can include decapitations, slicing through entire body halves, or getting blown up).

Sorry, I didn’t see that you had replied.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I'm reluctant on approaching mutilation due to its rather broad definition, accurately it should include "complete or partial removals" OR "irreversible damage", which means that it can range from shredding a body with a chainsaw to something as simple as circumcision (with implies genital_mutilation). It would also be hard to determine which "part of the body" is the focus; e.g., an amputation of the finger would be a mutilation of the hand.

I think I have a solution for this. Ideally, I think such a tag should retain both the genital mutilation definition (considering that the tag for that is already in use) and the more general destruction definition in common use without simply overlapping with amputation.

I think this can be achieved by defining mutilation as the removal of any part that can’t also be considered a whole part for the purposes of amputation. So as far as limbs are concerned, it can’t be the removal of an entire digit, the entire hand, forearm or foreleg, or arm or leg. But partial removals count - anything as small as pulling out fingernails up to cutting off entire chunks of the arm or leg.

Putting that aside, I can agree with how amputation is being defined, which includes limbs, digits, tails, wings, or any other appendages/extremities that a character can possess (including tentacles, flesh whiskers, fins, etc.).

However, for dismemberment I'm still rather stumped, again having to count number of limbs won't be useful, seeing that someone can experience (almost) full-body dismemberment and decapitation but still possess one untouched limb. Perhaps we could have subtags (like limb_dismemberment) and include removal through violent means as a criteria?

That way, amputation can be the general removal of limbs tag (be it violent or not), and have dismemberment be the violent removal of any large body part (which can include decapitations, slicing through entire body halves, or getting blown up).

I think this works. So, to summarize:

• amputation - any depiction of the act of any limb, digit, or other major appendage being removed from a character. Implies severe_wound.
• amputated - any character that has just been amputated, whether or not the limbs are still visible or the act itself has been shown. The focus of the tag is on a character that has just lost a body part - there should be a visible bloody stump or something where it once was. Implies severe_wound.
• amputee - any character who is left disabled due to having lost body parts in the past - implies disability, not injury.
• dismemberment - Removal of any major body part through violent means as opposed to a more surgical removal. Includes particularly violent decapitation, bisection, being blown to pieces, et cetera. Implies severe_wound.
• dismembered - any character that has just been dismembered, whether or not the body parts are still visible or the act itself has been shown. Implies severe_wound.
• mutilation - as stated above, unless you have any objections.

scaliespe said:

I think I have a solution for this. Ideally, I think such a tag should retain both the genital mutilation definition (considering that the tag for that is already in use) and the more general destruction definition in common use without simply overlapping with amputation.

I think this can be achieved by defining mutilation as the removal of any part that can’t also be considered a whole part for the purposes of amputation. So as far as limbs are concerned, it can’t be the removal of an entire digit, the entire hand, forearm or foreleg, or arm or leg. But partial removals count - anything as small as pulling out fingernails up to cutting off entire chunks of the arm or leg.

I think that would work, with the addition of the body "being damaged, injured, or modified beyond their original state" so that it would be inline with the general wiki definition of genital_mutilation as well.

I think this works. So, to summarize:

• amputation - any depiction of the act of any limb, digit, or other major appendage being removed from a character. Implies severe_wound.
• amputated - any character that has just been amputated, whether or not the limbs are still visible or the act itself has been shown. The focus of the tag is on a character that has just lost a body part - there should be a visible bloody stump or something where it once was. Implies severe_wound.
• amputee - any character who is left disabled due to having lost body parts in the past - implies disability, not injury.
• dismemberment - Removal of any major body part through violent means as opposed to a more surgical removal. Includes particularly violent decapitation, bisection, being blown to pieces, et cetera. Implies severe_wound.
• dismembered - any character that has just been dismembered, whether or not the body parts are still visible or the act itself has been shown. Implies severe_wound.
• mutilation - as stated above, unless you have any objections.

Looks good!

thegreatwolfgang said:
I think that would work, with the addition of the body "being damaged, injured, or modified beyond their original state" so that it would be inline with the general wiki definition of genital_mutilation as well.

Right, that’s what I meant by any part being “removed.” Any kind of damage or modification that could be considered mutilation is probably going to involve removing something, even if it’s just part of the skin. That counts for circumcisions and so on, while also counting for things like deep acid burns that leave the afflicted body part with much of the skin eroded away, meanwhile disqualifying common body modifications like tattoos and piercings - while technically these are often permanent modifications, they can’t be called mutilation under any definition sensible for our purposes. But this should certainly be clarified in the wiki.

It just occurred that we may need another tag for this concept as we have for the others. mutilated, for characters have have been mutilated in the past (akin to amputee), and are left with the damage. There are a few posts under mutilation currently that better fit that definition, but most of them seem to depict the act itself.

Then there’s the question of implications. I’m thinking mutilation should imply wounded rather than severe_wound, as opposed to the other two tags in this group, but I’m not sure. While “mutilation” tends to have pretty severe connotations, there is the case of genital mutilation including something like a circumcision, and I’m not sure if that would actually count as severe or not. Those are not generally dangerous as they’re generally done medically, but so are amputations, and those are definitely major. I could imagine a non-medical circumcision being fairly injurious.

Regardless, I think the genital_mutilation -> mutilation implication might be worth adding at least. Maybe even a major_mutilation tag for distinguishing those particularly gory cases (ie. most of the current results for the mutilation tag)?

scaliespe said:
It just occurred that we may need another tag for this concept as we have for the others. mutilated, for characters have have been mutilated in the past (akin to amputee), and are left with the damage. There are a few posts under mutilation currently that better fit that definition, but most of them seem to depict the act itself.

I feel that mutilated describes the immediate aftermath of a character that was subjected to mutilation, say a bleeding penis after circumcision.
Then we would need to have a tag like (for example) disfigured to describe healed wounds, such as permanent disfigurement of the body/body part. Should not apply to circumcised though.

Then there’s the question of implications. I’m thinking mutilation should imply wounded rather than severe_wound, as opposed to the other two tags in this group, but I’m not sure. While “mutilation” tends to have pretty severe connotations, there is the case of genital mutilation including something like a circumcision, and I’m not sure if that would actually count as severe or not. Those are not generally dangerous as they’re generally done medically, but so are amputations, and those are definitely major. I could imagine a non-medical circumcision being fairly injurious.

Regardless, I think the genital_mutilation -> mutilation implication might be worth adding at least. Maybe even a major_mutilation tag for distinguishing those particularly gory cases (ie. most of the current results for the mutilation tag)?

I wouldn't be opposed to it. It is worth noting that mutilation means the permanent disfigurement of a body part, so a clipped_ear would fall into it. Implying to just wounded might be better, while for the major one it can range from severe_wound to fatal_wound.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I feel that mutilated describes the immediate aftermath of a character that was subjected to mutilation, say a bleeding penis after circumcision.
Then we would need to have a tag like (for example) disfigured to describe healed wounds, such as permanent disfigurement of the body/body part. Should not apply to circumcised though.

I had considered suggesting something like this. I was originally trying to find a word equivalent to amputee but for mutilation (something like “mutilatee”), but no such word seems to exist. Disfigured works, though. However, I think it should only apply to the effects of major_mutilation. Not only would people searching or blacklisting it probably not want it to cover things like cropped ears or docked tails, but it would also have to include every character with a visibly circumcised penis, which would be… excessive.

disfigured will need a cleanup, however, as it seems that many of the current results are depicting characters actively being mutilated. In some sense that’s an arbitrary word to use, as disfigured can apply to the immediate aftermath the same way mutilated can, and disfigurement can apply to the ongoing process the same way mutilation can. However, I think an arbitrary decision along with a clarification on the respective wiki pages may still our best bet here, unless someone can come up with a different term to use.

I may even suggest using disfigured/disfigurement in place of major_mutilation (and what would be the tag for the immediate aftermath of that anyway? “Majorly_mutilated?” Ehhh) since common usage of the word seems to imply major mutilation regardless, and I’ve never heard that term used regarding something like a circumcision/cropped ear/whatever. But… that would still leave us needing to find another term for someone with healed major mutilation wounds, and I still can’t think of any at the moment. So, maybe not.

I wouldn't be opposed to it. It is worth noting that mutilation means the permanent disfigurement of a body part, so a clipped_ear would fall into it. Implying to just wounded might be better, while for the major one it can range from severe_wound to fatal_wound.

Good point, I agree.

scaliespe said:
I had considered suggesting something like this. I was originally trying to find a word equivalent to amputee but for mutilation (something like “mutilatee”), but no such word seems to exist. Disfigured works, though. However, I think it should only apply to the effects of major_mutilation. Not only would people searching or blacklisting it probably not want it to cover things like cropped ears or docked tails, but it would also have to include every character with a visibly circumcised penis, which would be… excessive.

disfigured will need a cleanup, however, as it seems that many of the current results are depicting characters actively being mutilated. In some sense that’s an arbitrary word to use, as disfigured can apply to the immediate aftermath the same way mutilated can, and disfigurement can apply to the ongoing process the same way mutilation can. However, I think an arbitrary decision along with a clarification on the respective wiki pages may still our best bet here, unless someone can come up with a different term to use.

I may even suggest using disfigured/disfigurement in place of major_mutilation (and what would be the tag for the immediate aftermath of that anyway? “Majorly_mutilated?” Ehhh) since common usage of the word seems to imply major mutilation regardless, and I’ve never heard that term used regarding something like a circumcision/cropped ear/whatever. But… that would still leave us needing to find another term for someone with healed major mutilation wounds, and I still can’t think of any at the moment. So, maybe not.

I feel that we should keep major_mutilation as a separate tag to describe the more heavy kind of mutilation.

While disfigured can be an umbrella tag for all sorts of "events that resulted in disfigurement"; i.e., it can cover post-mutilated recovery, genetic disorders/birth defects, cancerous growths/mutations, etc. Even "disturbing" transformations like the Cronenbergs from Rick_and_Morty.
Obvious exclusion criteria should be added for mild things like clipped_ear, docked_tail, circumcision, etc. unless the changes are severe.

We can later alias disfigurement to disfigured or invalidate it for alternative tags like mutilation or other wounds.

I don't think we would need a specific post-mutilated tag unless the need arises.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I feel that we should keep major_mutilation as a separate tag to describe the more heavy kind of mutilation.

While disfigured can be an umbrella tag for all sorts of "events that resulted in disfigurement"; i.e., it can cover post-mutilated recovery, genetic disorders/birth defects, cancerous growths/mutations, etc. Even "disturbing" transformations like the Cronenbergs from Rick_and_Morty.
Obvious exclusion criteria should be added for mild things like clipped_ear, docked_tail, circumcision, etc. unless the changes are severe.

We can later alias disfigurement to disfigured or invalidate it for alternative tags like mutilation or other wounds.

I don't think we would need a specific post-mutilated tag unless the need arises.

Yeah, I think this makes more sense. +1

The bulk update request #2150 is pending approval.

create implication amputation (566) -> severe_wound (141)
create implication amputated (145) -> severe_wound (141)
create implication dismemberment (1070) -> severe_wound (141)
create implication dismembered (89) -> severe_wound (141)
mass update mutilation -> severe_mutilation
create implication severe_mutilation (0) -> mutilation (2332)
create implication genital_mutilation (1685) -> mutilation (2332)
create implication severe_mutilation (0) -> severe_wound (141)
create implication mutilation (2332) -> wounded (11898)

Reason: As per the discussion above. Distinguishing dismembered from dismemberment and amputated from amputation in the sense that the noun form is used for a depiction of the act itself, while the past tense refers to a character that has been made the victim of such an act, whether or not the act itself is seen in the post.

I changed major_mutilation to severe_mutilation to follow the format of severe_wound.

scaliespe said:
The bulk update request #2150 is pending approval.

create implication amputation (566) -> severe_wound (141)
create implication amputated (145) -> severe_wound (141)
create implication dismemberment (1070) -> severe_wound (141)
create implication dismembered (89) -> severe_wound (141)
mass update mutilation -> severe_mutilation
create implication severe_mutilation (0) -> mutilation (2332)
create implication genital_mutilation (1685) -> mutilation (2332)
create implication severe_mutilation (0) -> severe_wound (141)
create implication mutilation (2332) -> wounded (11898)

Just want to say that BUR #2046 (i.e., the main BUR on top) has imply amputation -> wounded, so it might conflict with your imply amputation -> severe_wound.

Other than that, everything seems to be in order, though we might need to create a new thread if this gets buried.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Just want to say that BUR #2046 (i.e., the main BUR on top) has imply amputation -> wounded, so it might conflict with your imply amputation -> severe_wound.

Other than that, everything seems to be in order, though we might need to create a new thread if this gets buried.

Right. If AchtungMaybe is still watching this thread, perhaps you could either remove that line from your BUR, or change it to severe_wound so I can remove that line from mine.

scaliespe said:
Right. If AchtungMaybe is still watching this thread, perhaps you could either remove that line from your BUR, or change it to severe_wound so I can remove that line from mine.

got it

EDIT: weird - I'm getting an error message saying something along the lines of "you can't create a BUR with more than 25 entries" when I try to do anything

achtungmaybe said:
got it

EDIT: weird - I'm getting an error message saying something along the lines of "you can't create a BUR with more than 25 entries" when I try to do anything

Seems like it is a new limitation as listed on the recent changelog.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Seems like it is a new limitation as listed on the recent changelog.

seems i can't edit it then.. scaliespe might have to remove that line unfortunately(?)

achtungmaybe said:
seems i can't edit it then.. scaliespe might have to remove that line unfortunately(?)

Right… I didn’t suppose that update would mess with existing BURs. I think there are two solutions here:

You could remove every item in your BUR after the 25th line and put them all in a separate (third) BUR appended to this thread. Or…

We could leave it as is and wait for approval. Once everything has been approved, amputation will have both implications. I could just submit a one-line BUR at that point that removes wounded from the implications.

The bulk update request #2187 is pending approval.

create implication stab (1014) -> puncture_wound (56)
create implication bullet_wound (425) -> puncture_wound (56)
create implication perforating_wound (144) -> puncture_wound (56)
create implication puncture_wound (56) -> wounded (11898)
create implication hand_wound (49) -> wounded (11898)
create implication leg_wound (54) -> wounded (11898)
create implication foot_wound (8) -> wounded (11898)
create implication butt_wound (1) -> wounded (11898)
create implication arm_wound (86) -> wounded (11898)
create implication genital_wound (0) -> wounded (11898)
create implication head_wound (140) -> wounded (11898)
create implication chest_wound (60) -> wounded (11898)
create implication stomach_wound (68) -> wounded (11898)

Reason: overflow