The bulk update request #10450 has been rejected.

remove alias siamese_twins (0) -> conjoined_twins (343)
remove implication conjoined_twins (343) -> conjoined (2562)
create alias conjoined_twins (343) -> conjoined_twins_(lore) (0)
create implication conjoined_twins_(lore) (0) -> conjoined (2562)
create implication conjoined_twins_(lore) (0) -> twins_(lore) (9874)

Reason: Rushed the first attempt of this. So I'm trying it for a second time with some effort.

EDIT: The bulk update request #10450 (forum #440053) has been rejected by @Grab-n-Stash.

I don't see why this needs to be lore. Unlike other familial relationships, conjoined twins are visually objective. Ah wait, I misunderstood the tag. I don't see what reason the tag has to exist separately from conjoined in the first place, though? If the conjoined characters are related, they can be tagged through the existing family relation tags.

People tag posts with conjoined_twins when they see two similar-looking characters merged into one body. The familial relationship between them is assumed by having "twins" in the tag name, but on the other hand, that term is succinct and well-understood.

beholding said:
I don't see why this needs to be lore. Unlike other familial relationships, conjoined twins are visually objective. Ah wait, I misunderstood the tag. I don't see what reason the tag has to exist separately from conjoined in the first place, though? If the conjoined characters are related, they can be tagged through the existing family relation tags.

Made an alias requset for dicephalic twins (lore) that was originally just implications and the idea for the conjoined twins (lore) alias came from someone else.

spe said:
While we’re at it, does anything need to be done with conjoined_twins? We already have a conjoined tag.

The bulk update request #10450 (forum #440053) has been rejected by @Grab-n-Stash.