I just realized there seems to be a lot of ambiguity and confusion regarding scales, skin, scalies and how they are tagged. The scalie wiki page seems to not necessarily suggest tagging always based on whether a creature has scales or not but rather they are expected to even by common misconceptions. It was to my understanding that amphibians get *_scales tags since they look like scalies, however the body wiki page explains that skin is what amphibians have. However, skin is a defunct tag, but *_skin tags exist.

So as far as I can tell, the body types that get tags associated with them are as follows

Body
-Exoskeleton
-Feathers
-Fur
-Goo (Not listed)
-Scales
-Scutes (Not listed)
-Skin

On top of this, to add further confusion I'm familiar with moth anatomy, and they look fuzzy, however this fuzz is scales. Should there be a non-fur based fluff or fuzz tag, or should this be tagged as fur because it looks like fur, or should it be tagged scales since it's scales?

There's a tag what you see rule on this site, but it's complicated since scales are in most cases implied just by the species drawn. Most scales are depicted as a smooth surface and rendered identically to skin.

I'd like to get this sorted out since I've honestly been tagging amphibians with *_scales tags for quite some time now and am now not sure if this is wrong.

i'llkogyourmaw said:
It was to my understanding that amphibians get *_scales tags since they look like scalies, however the body wiki page explains that skin is what amphibians have.

Not all amphibians have scales (in artworks), so that is a bad rule of thumb. Always tag subjectively on a post-by-post basis.
In addition, scalies do not always have scales. This is a very common misconception. Please read the scalie wiki for a detailed explanation.

However, skin is a defunct tag, but *_skin tags exist.

Skin, by itself, is a defunct tag as it is the most common body type and is probably used in the majority of artworks.
On the other hand, scales is unique and different from skin, taking the form of tiny or large segmented bony plates on the body.

So as far as I can tell, the body types that get tags associated with them are as follows
...

Yes, body types can consist of one or more textures. For example:

• post #2770411 = scales only
• post #2765210 = skin only
• post #2229380 = fur only
• post #2889811 = skin + scales
• post #3033348 = fur + scales
• post #3026319 = skin + fur

On top of this, to add further confusion I'm familiar with moth anatomy, and they look fuzzy, however this fuzz is scales. Should there be a non-fur based fluff or fuzz tag, or should this be tagged as fur because it looks like fur, or should it be tagged scales since it's scales?

It would be helpful if you could supply the specific post example in question for us to help you. However, in general, you should tag based on what you feel it most likely depicts.
If it looks like fur, then tag it as fur. If it looks like scales, then tag it as scales.

If you honestly could not make out what body texture the character has, then you can play it safe and tag <color>_body directly without including a body texture type.

There's a tag what you see rule on this site, but it's complicated since scales are in most cases implied just by the species drawn. Most scales are depicted as a smooth surface and rendered identically to skin.

Could you tell me what species imply scales? As far as I know, no species are directly implied with their typical body types as it violates Tag What You See and becomes Tag What You Know.

In cases where skin and scales seemingly merge into one and/or does not have distinct separation, then it is best to tag both skin and scales for the post; e.g., post #3274917.

I'd like to get this sorted out since I've honestly been tagging amphibians with *_scales tags for quite some time now and am now not sure if this is wrong.

You should know by now that not all amphibians would have scales. That would be Tag What You Know, not Tag What You See.

Here's an example of a moth https://e621.net/posts/3494488

Biologically they're scales and exoskeleton.

thegreatwolfgang said:

• post #2765210 = skin only

it has scales tho

i'llkogyourmaw said:
Here's an example of a moth https://e621.net/posts/3494488

Biologically they're scales and exoskeleton.

It looks like fur only, to be honest. Scales and exoskeleton should only be tagged if they are visibly apparent.

ratte said:
it has scales tho

Extremely borderline, impractical to tag. If you want to be picky, then it would technically be considered scales.
However, I wouldn't tag scales if it is just a barely visible scale texture overlaid on top of normal-looking skin.

thegreatwolfgang said:
It looks like fur only, to be honest. Scales and exoskeleton should only be tagged if they are visibly apparent.

Extremely borderline, impractical to tag. If you want to be picky, then it would technically be considered scales.
However, I wouldn't tag scales if it is just a barely visible scale texture overlaid on top of normal-looking skin.

I think this exemplifies the issue at hand here. There's a lot of ambiguity and scalies do often get tagged off of assumptions rather than raw visuals. Our brains seem to understand reptiles as having scales even if no texture is there to suggest scales.