Remove implication furred_dragon -> dragon

As noted in the furry diffusion discord server, furred_dragon ends up implying scalie through a chain of implications, even though scalies (generally) have scales (there are counter-examples, but are primarily non-draconic, so it may be better to treat those situations as manual tags and not automatic ones).
Additionally, furred_wyvern does not similarly implicate wyvern.

Technical-Grid said:
Yeah i think we should treat furred_dragon and dragon as two separate entities.
After all when you think about mythological_scalie, the typical scaled dragons come to mind

unimply furred_dragon -> dragon

This would be a move to match a similar request on e6AI

The tag isn't used for creatures with scales, it's used for creatures with specifically reptilian characteristics regardless of whether they have scales or not. This is all explained in the scalie wiki page, and should be pretty clear given furred_scalie and feathered_scalie exist

The bulk update request #11234 is pending approval.

remove implication furred_dragon (34686) -> dragon (387708)

Reason: Formalizing the request (votes are convenient gauges)

I think honestly dragons shouldn't implicate scalie in the first place - dragons are not inherently reptilian, albeit many are, and many many many types of dragons found in folklore and across media are more mammalian, amphibian, or avian [as avian =/= scalie on this website]. Falkor looks more like a really long dog, for example.

The people pushing their Patreons for their Stable Diffusion outputs on your site are so funny. Like a sort of furry porn dropshipping scam.

The bulk update request #11236 is active.

create implication furred_wyvern (43) -> wyvern (7894)

Reason: well, since it was brought up.

EDIT: The bulk update request #11236 (forum #451066) has been approved by @spe.

moonlit-comet said:
I think honestly dragons shouldn't implicate scalie in the first place - dragons are not inherently reptilian, albeit many are, and many many many types of dragons found in folklore and across media are more mammalian, amphibian, or avian [as avian =/= scalie on this website]. Falkor looks more like a really long dog, for example.

scalie is, in all honesty, kind of a nonsense term; it's like, all reptiles excluding modern avians (all prehistoric dinos still get in, even the ones that really look like birds) and several fictional species that are based on those species, and then also salamanders sometimes, and probably a few other things.

dba_afish said:
scalie is, in all honesty, kind of a nonsense term; it's like, all reptiles excluding modern avians (all prehistoric dinos still get in, even the ones that really look like birds) and several fictional species that are based on those species, and then also salamanders sometimes, and probably a few other things.

Basically any vertebrate that isn't an avian dinosaur [bird] or a mammal can be a scalie on this site. lol

moonlit-comet said:
Basically any vertebrate that isn't an avian dinosaur [bird] or a mammal can be a scalie on this site. lol

also generally not fish. most of the time, usually, I think.

oneohthrix said:
The people pushing their Patreons for their Stable Diffusion outputs on your site are so funny. Like a sort of furry porn dropshipping scam.

A fool and his money are easily parted.
Though hopefully, that won’t happen that much with the new rule banning the promotion of paywalled content.

draco18s said:
Remove implication furred_dragon -> dragon

That's not how you request an implication, please do so using the proper channels next time.

As noted in the furry diffusion discord server, furred_dragon ends up implying scalie through a chain of implications, even though scalies (generally) have scales (there are counter-examples, but are primarily non-draconic, so it may be better to treat those situations as manual tags and not automatic ones).

Whatever gets discussed on your Discord server has no bearing whatsoever on e621's tagging.

Scalie is used for anything with "reptilian features" and not necessarily "scales" (e.g., feathered_dinosaur).
If you want a tag that describes characters with scales, you should be using scales instead.

Since dragon is considered reptilian by default, it ends up being implied to furred_dragon, which is essentially any dragon covered in fur.
If it doesn't look like a dragon to begin with, maybe consider not tagging it as furred_dragon and resort to using something else more suitable.

Why even bother having your own tagging definitions if the entirety of your site is trained on our content? Absolute parity with our tagging scheme seems more efficient.

I guess integration between the two is purposefully kept at a distance though.

oneohthrix said:
Why even bother having your own tagging definitions if the entirety of your site is trained on our content? Absolute parity with our tagging scheme seems more efficient.

I guess integration between the two is purposefully kept at a distance though.

Saying it's trained on content has unpleasant implications

moonlit-comet said:
I think honestly dragons shouldn't implicate scalie in the first place - dragons are not inherently reptilian, albeit many are, and many many many types of dragons found in folklore and across media are more mammalian, amphibian, or avian [as avian =/= scalie on this website]. Falkor looks more like a really long dog, for example.

Pretty well said,
We have mythological tags and thats where it should be redirected. Dragons are mythos and we can make up whatever we want with it

thegreatwolfgang said:

Since dragon is considered reptilian by default

Could you please further elaborate on the reptilian features for example on this post?

https://e621.net/posts/2056103

The only dragon dragon we have is because we named that way is komodo dragon, is funny reptilian but its the only creature we have as named for dragon
otherwise its just references to dragon

thegreatwolfgang said:
Scalie is used for anything with "reptilian features" and not necessarily "scales" (e.g., feathered_dinosaur).
If you want a tag that describes characters with scales, you should be using scales instead.

Since dragon is considered reptilian by default, it ends up being implied to furred_dragon, which is essentially any dragon covered in fur.
If it doesn't look like a dragon to begin with, maybe consider not tagging it as furred_dragon and resort to using something else more suitable.

Not gonna lie, I find the vagueness of the scalie tag extremely odd. When searching scalie -scales it seems like the common features are something along the lines of:
-Has a thick tail (usually)
-Has a longish snout (sometimes)
-Has horns (sometimes)

Honestly, I'd be fascinated to hear from someone who uses this tag what they're looking for when searching it, as I find it so unspecific that I'd never even considered using it to search for anything.

edit:

denatural said:
Could you please further elaborate on the reptilian features for example on this post?

https://e621.net/posts/2056103

I swear, the thick tail is by far the most unifying characteristic, if scales aren't considered, which is kinda strange.

oneohthrix said:
The people pushing their Patreons for their Stable Diffusion outputs on your site are so funny. Like a sort of furry porn dropshipping scam.

You mean on e6ai? Which is not "my" site.
Because doing that is against the upload guidelines. For precisely the reason you just stated.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Whatever gets discussed on your Discord server has no bearing whatsoever on e621's tagging.

"It came up" -> I mentioned it to Jello -> Jello suggested making a BUR/Implication request.

moonlit-comet said:
I think honestly dragons shouldn't implicate scalie in the first place - dragons are not inherently reptilian, albeit many are, and many many many types of dragons found in folklore and across media are more mammalian, amphibian, or avian [as avian =/= scalie on this website]. Falkor looks more like a really long dog, for example.

I want to quote my own comment from not that while ago when someone asked what qualifies as a dragon.
This image pretty much sums up how lax things are. If it looks like dragon, it gets the dragon tag.

If you want something more specific, consider looking up the exact species tag (e.g., western_dragon, eastern_dragon, feathered_dragon, aquatic_dragon, etc.).

denatural said:
Could you please further elaborate on the reptilian features for example on this post?

https://e621.net/posts/2056103

General shape and features of the head (i.e., a combination of horned, snout, slit nostrils, long pointed ears, the typical ^.=.^ dragon snout face), winged, and that telltale dragon tail.
Essentially any anthro dragon without any fur or scales would look like that (see dragon anthro -feral -fur -scales).

quenir said:
Not gonna lie, I find the vagueness of the scalie tag extremely odd. When searching scalie -scales it seems like the common features are something along the lines of:
-Has a thick tail (usually)
-Has a longish snout (sometimes)
-Has horns (sometimes)

Honestly, I'd be fascinated to hear from someone who uses this tag what they're looking for when searching it, as I find it so unspecific that I'd never even considered using it to search for anything.

edit:
I swear, the thick tail is by far the most unifying characteristic, if scales aren't considered, which is kinda strange.

That thick eastern_dragon-like "paintbrush" tail carries a lot of weight. The scalie tag is meant to be very vague as it is everything reptilian (but not directly reptile) and the opposite of what the typical "furry" should look like.

draco18s said:
"It came up" -> I mentioned it to Jello -> Jello suggested making a BUR/Implication request.

You mentioned "as noted in the furry diffusion discord server" which made me assume a discussion regarding tagging took place outside of e621 or our own Discord server.

draco18s said:
This would be a move to match a similar request on e6AI

Is there any integration between e621 and e6AI whatsoever? Why do you guys have to manually align tag implications like dogs? Seems like it should be automated.

draco18s said:
"It came up" -> I mentioned it to Jello -> Jello suggested making a BUR/Implication request.

who?

dba_afish said:
who?

i would assume they're talking about jelloponies. they're an admin on the e6ai site i believe

thegreatwolfgang said:
I want to quote my own comment from not that while ago when someone asked what qualifies as a dragon.
This image pretty much sums up how lax things are. If it looks like dragon, it gets the dragon tag.

If you want something more specific, consider looking up the exact species tag (e.g., western_dragon, eastern_dragon, feathered_dragon, aquatic_dragon, etc.).

Like, say, furred_dragon? That's the problem. furred dragon -> dragon -> mythological_scalie -> scalie.

If the furred_dragon -> dragon isn't the problem, where do you suggest breaking it instead?

thegreatwolfgang said:
You mentioned "as noted in the furry diffusion discord server" which made me assume a discussion regarding tagging took place outside of e621 or our own Discord server.

Oh the conversation I had with Jello took place on the e6ai Discord server. I forwarded the comment from Furry Diffusion to there so that staff would see it and give input.

draco18s said:
Oh the conversation I had with Jello took place on the e6ai Discord server. I forwarded the comment from Furry Diffusion to there so that staff would see it and give input.

Based on the votes right now, I don't think the majority of us here on e621 see the problem.
I would hate to say the same now for the sister thread on e6ai since not many people voted yet.

Like, say, furred_dragon? That's the problem. furred dragon -> dragon -> mythological_scalie -> scalie.

If the furred_dragon -> dragon isn't the problem, where do you suggest breaking it instead?

It wouldn't make sense to break furred_dragon from dragon since they are essentially dragons with fur.
In which case, what are you are really arguing for is for dragon to be unimplied from scalie.

The reasons you have given so far are not very compelling since they do not make sense nor are they valid.

• "furred_dragon ends up implying scalie through a chain of implications, even though scalies (generally) have scales"
• Nope, scales is not a mandatory component for one to be considered scalie.
• "there are counter-examples, but are primarily non-draconic, so it may be better to treat those situations as manual tags and not automatic ones"
• Present said counter-examples and your definition of "non-draconic". If something is non-draconic, then it wouldn't be tagged as dragon according to TWYS now, would it?
• "Additionally, furred_wyvern does not similarly implicate wyvern."
• And? Was there a specific discussion asking for them to be split for the same reasons you have mentioned, or was it simply because nobody thought about implicating them yet?

thegreatwolfgang said:
Based on the votes right now, I don't think the majority of us here on e621 see the problem.
I would hate to say the same now for the sister thread on e6ai since not many people voted yet.

to be fair, commin' in hot with the "As noted in the furry diffusion discord server" probably didn't do the chances of success for the BUR any favours.

but also, everything else you said is also true.

thegreatwolfgang said:
In which case, what are you are really arguing for is for dragon to be unimplied from scalie.

I asked for alternatives, this is one of them. Although it'd actually be an unimplication of dragon to mythological_scalie as dragon doesn't imply scalie directly.

draco18s said:
I asked for alternatives, this is one of them. Although it'd actually be an unimplication of dragon to mythological_scalie as dragon doesn't imply scalie directly.

That is a separate issue completely unrelated to our discussion (i.e., relating to the issue that not all dragons are "mythological" in nature).
Though I guess that thread is also where the implication for dragon -> (mythological) scalie came from, which you can see the arguments for keeping it there.

Do Dragon type Pokemon get the Dragon tag? Especially since Dragon isn't a species?
I just want an excuse to claim that Applin is a dragon because I love him

nin10dope said:
Do Dragon type Pokemon get the Dragon tag? Especially since Dragon isn't a species?
I just want an excuse to claim that Applin is a dragon because I love him

Where did you read that dragon is not a species tag?

We treat dragon in the same vein as canine or feline when it comes to tagging Pokemon monsters.
E.g., we never tag meowth as being a domestic_cat (but rather as feline) nor do we tag rattata as being a rat (but rather as rodent).

For applin, a literal worm sticking out of an apple is hardly justification to tag it as dragon.
On the other hand, we do tag charizard and lugia as being a dragon even though their base form is not canonically classified as being "dragon".

nin10dope said:
Do Dragon type Pokemon get the Dragon tag? Especially since Dragon isn't a species?
I just want an excuse to claim that Applin is a dragon because I love him

case-by-case. some dragon-types are less dragon than others, altaria, zygarde_10, tatsugiri, and exeggutor Alola are some who definitely aren't despite their typing (inverse for charizard).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Where did you read that dragon is not a species tag?

We treat dragon in the same vein as canine or feline when it comes to tagging Pokemon monsters.
E.g., we never tag meowth as being a domestic_cat (but rather as feline) nor do we tag rattata as being a rat (but rather as rodent).

For applin, a literal worm sticking out of an apple is hardly justification to tag it as dragon.
On the other hand, we do tag charizard and lugia as being a dragon even though their base form is not canonically classified as being "dragon".

I was just guessing off the idea that a Dragon isn't real but I suppose you could also suppose it's not a species but maybe higher in the tree since there's so many typesspecies of dragons.

But the Applin bit was just a joke lmao

nin10dope said:
But the Applin bit was just a joke lmao

I thought you were poking at the idea of a literal apple having a dragon's tail, which by itself is not enough to tag it as dragon.
However, stick enough draconic features onto an apple and you may reach the point where it does qualify.

post #3200382

thegreatwolfgang said:
I thought you were poking at the idea of a literal apple having a dragon's tail, which by itself is not enough to tag it as dragon.
However, stick enough draconic features onto an apple and you may reach the point where it does qualify.

post #3200382

Unironically I think Flapple easily qualifies as an actual Dragon lol

denatural said:
Pretty well said,
We have mythological tags and thats where it should be redirected. Dragons are mythos and we can make up whatever we want with it

Could you please further elaborate on the reptilian features for example on this post?

https://e621.net/posts/2056103

The only dragon dragon we have is because we named that way is komodo dragon, is funny reptilian but its the only creature we have as named for dragon
otherwise its just references to dragon

What about bearded dragon? 😏

The bulk update request #11236 (forum #451066) has been approved by @spe.

I feel like a lot of confusion could be cleared up if we simply renamed scalie to reptilian, since the tag is really just based on characters having reptilian features (which includes, but is not limited to, scales). However, the argument that scalies must have scales is already out the window. For one, we already have the scales tag for that. Just use that to find scaled characters. And for two, every implication to scalie would have to be removed, since any species can be drawn without scales, and that would make the tag virtually useless. Furred dragon, furred snake, feathered dinosaur, etc. all exist. Hell, not even all real-life reptiles have scales (see the aforementioned feathered_dinosaur).

spe said:
Hell, not even all real-life reptiles have scales (see the aforementioned feathered_dinosaur).

well, also birds, which I guess are technically feathered dinosaurs.

_{(by the way there's something really funny about the Wikipedia pages for dinosaur clades, as you get closer to modern birds the info box will show 5 extinct species and then a random bird. I find the page for coelurosauria particularly amusing, just a bunch of ancient skeletons on display in museums and then at the end a tiny little sparrow sitting on someone's banister)}

spe said:
I feel like a lot of confusion could be cleared up if we simply renamed scalie to reptilian, since the tag is really just based on characters having reptilian features (which includes, but is not limited to, scales). However, the argument that scalies must have scales is already out the window. For one, we already have the scales tag for that. Just use that to find scaled characters. And for two, every implication to scalie would have to be removed, since any species can be drawn without scales, and that would make the tag virtually useless. Furred dragon, furred snake, feathered dinosaur, etc. all exist. Hell, not even all real-life reptiles have scales (see the aforementioned feathered_dinosaur).

Would like this change. I never liked the term "scalie" anyway since it implies that "furries" only apply to furred animals.

cadynn said:
Would like this change. I never liked the term "scalie" anyway since it implies that "furries" only apply to furred animals.

I always got the impression that the term scalie was specifically coined because of that unspoken implication. While also keeping the e sound at the end of the word.

spe said:
I feel like a lot of confusion could be cleared up if we simply renamed scalie to reptilian,

I like this idea
I don't know how big of an impact that change would have on the servers and/or database tho
People have said that it's really easy for BURs to cause issues in the code before, and changing scalie sounds like it would be massive

I don't think renaming scalie (an established term since 1997) to reptilian would accomplish much. People will just complain that reptilian sounds identical to reptile and it should not exist on whatever post they find.
What we ought to be doing is teaching those who are not that well-informed about scalie on the differences between it and scales.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I don't think renaming scalie (an established term since 1997) to reptilian would accomplish much. People will just complain that reptilian sounds identical to reptile and it should not exist on whatever post they find.
What we ought to be doing is teaching those who are not that well-informed about scalie on the differences between it and scales.

My automatic suggestion was editing the wiki but in this case, the wiki is top-notch and crystal clear.
Maybe more people just need to be directed to it
I was also thinking that changing it to Reptilian would be goofy because that's the Conspiracy theory species

thegreatwolfgang said:
I don't think renaming scalie (an established term since 1997) to reptilian would accomplish much. People will just complain that reptilian sounds identical to reptile and it should not exist on whatever post they find.
What we ought to be doing is teaching those who are not that well-informed about scalie on the differences between it and scales.

honestly, I don't see why we don't just deprecate the term entirely and then alias it to reptile. the term seems to already mean "reptile but not kinda not" but like, we don't have that for mammal or fish or mollusk or arthropod or amphibian. we just have scalie and avian, weird "kinda-kinda-not"-taxon tags that exist because ???; we have these two tags that seemingly only exist so that fictional reptiles and birds don't need to be implied to reptile and bird, when that's what we do with everything else.

Fluffy pony? That's a mammal.
Salmonid? Obviously a fish.
Inkling? Well that's a cephalopod, therefore a mollusk.
Indrel? Arthropod. _{^{(expected xenomorph to imply but it dosn't for some reason)}}
Keronian? Amphibian.

Koopa? That's certainly no reptile I've ever seen, call it "scalie".
Loftwing? Well that's definitely not a bird, call it an "avian".

I just don't get the reasoning for it...

dba_afish said:
Koopa? That's certainly no reptile I've ever seen, call it "scalie".

A Koopa is a reptile because they're (mostly/loosely/kinda) turtles (except Bowser who was originally an ox and is colloquially known as a dragon sometimes)
Is furry still used or was that completely invalidated for being too broad?

nin10dope said:
A Koopa is a reptile because they're (mostly/loosely/kinda) turtles (except Bowser who was originally an ox and is colloquially known as a dragon sometimes)
Is furry still used or was that completely invalidated for being too broad?

every species of koopa has got either a beak like a turtle's (troopa, magikoopa), or a shell like a turtle's (lakitu, bowser/koopaling), they're turtles. I don't get why they're implied to this weird in-between tag.

dba_afish said:
honestly, I don't see why we don't just deprecate the term entirely and then alias it to reptile. the term seems to already mean "reptile but not kinda not" but like, we don't have that for mammal or fish or mollusk or arthropod or amphibian. we just have scalie and avian, weird "kinda-kinda-not"-taxon tags that exist because ???; we have these two tags that seemingly only exist so that fictional reptiles and birds don't need to be implied to reptile and bird, when that's what we do with everything else.

Just for reference fish and molusks(and most other invertibrates outside of arthropods) do have marine and fictional amphibians are also ether grouped with marine, scalie or both. only fictional mammalians(furry is obviously invalidated) or arthropods lack an informal grouping...

ryu_deacon said:
Just for reference fish and molusks(and most other invertibrates outside of arthropods) do have marine and fictional amphibians are also ether grouped with marine, scalie or both. only fictional mammalians(furry is obviously invalidated) or arthropods lack an informal grouping...

marine is kind of a weird one, it's not really a species class, a catchall for any kind of animal that lives entirely/almost entirely within the water, I believe that every class of animal has at least a few marines in their ranks. it's also applied to cetacean (mammal), lobster (arthropod), and ichthyosaur (reptile). also, not all mollusks are marine animals, there are quite a few gastropods which are land-based.

I think this one's kinda fine as a tag even though its placement as a species category tag is a bit odd. it's definitely not the same deal as scalie or avian.

dba_afish said:
every species of koopa has got either a beak like a turtle's (troopa, magikoopa), or a shell like a turtle's (lakitu, bowser/koopaling), they're turtles. I don't get why they're implied to this weird in-between tag.

Do you mean the scalie tag?

nin10dope said:
Is furry still used or was that completely invalidated for being too broad?

It exists as part of another tag, i.e., not_furry.
Ironically, it is not for characters that do not have any fur.

spe said:
Hell, not even all real-life reptiles have scales (see the aforementioned feathered_dinosaur).

If you want to get overly pedantic, feathers are very highly modified scales, so feathered dinosaurs (and by extension, birds) aren't as out of place as they might initially seem.

Agree with removing scalie, or at least unimplying dragon to it. Dragon -> mythological_scalie is the problem here, not furred_dragon -> dragon

wandering_spaniel said:
Agree with removing scalie, or at least unimplying dragon to it. Dragon -> mythological_scalie is the problem here, not furred_dragon -> dragon

Shooting down the dragon -> mythological_scalie implication is indirectly part of BUR #6641.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Shooting down the dragon -> mythological_scalie implication is indirectly part of BUR #6641.

I'm still of the opinion that the mythological_<species> tag group is kinda bloat whose utility is, as far as I can tell, largely non-existent.

wandering_spaniel said:
Agree with removing scalie, or at least unimplying dragon to it. Dragon -> mythological_scalie is the problem here, not furred_dragon -> dragon

The scalie tag is such an odd vibes-based tag. Reptiles, mythological critters, some amphibians (which ones varies). It's just Reptiles 2 with some fandom history behind it.

Maybe just have reptilian and scalie.

idk

spe said:
I feel like a lot of confusion could be cleared up if we simply renamed scalie to reptilian, since the tag is really just based on characters having reptilian features (which includes, but is not limited to, scales). However, the argument that scalies must have scales is already out the window. For one, we already have the scales tag for that. Just use that to find scaled characters. And for two, every implication to scalie would have to be removed, since any species can be drawn without scales, and that would make the tag virtually useless. Furred dragon, furred snake, feathered dinosaur, etc. all exist. Hell, not even all real-life reptiles have scales (see the aforementioned feathered_dinosaur).

This seems like the most realistic low-cost implementation, but in a perfect world I think we might want to tag things like specific snout/muzzle structures.
post #4517036 post #4503796 post #1997649 post #788413
Species like Mawile and Lovander are occasionally portrayed with turtle/crocodile-like features even when they specifically have hair/fur, and not scales, and other depictions are more indistinct, cartoony, or outright humanoid/mammalian, but also if we tag these as turtles or crocodiles that's just not what people are looking for. Plus, facial structure is a large part of how these furred snakes, furred dragons, feathered dinos, etc. get identified.
post #2101046
Without the distinct mouth, nostrils, and teeth, this just comes off as some vaguely fuzzy thing like a cat or fox.

lafcadio said:
This seems like the most realistic low-cost implementation, but in a perfect world I think we might want to tag things like specific snout/muzzle structures.
post #4517036 post #4503796 post #1997649 post #788413
Species like Mawile and Lovander are occasionally portrayed with turtle/crocodile-like features even when they specifically have hair/fur, and not scales, and other depictions are more indistinct, cartoony, or outright humanoid/mammalian, but also if we tag these as turtles or crocodiles that's just not what people are looking for. Plus, facial structure is a large part of how these furred snakes, furred dragons, feathered dinos, etc. get identified.

well, I mean, lovander is based on a salamander (or it's based on salazzle which is a salamander).

lafcadio said:
post #2101046
Without the distinct mouth, nostrils, and teeth, this just comes off as some vaguely fuzzy thing like a cat or fox.

from the source:

[...]a snake or a cat or wolf
"Scawlf" i guess?...

so, you kinda hit the nail on the head there, that's actually not a furred snake, it's a snake/cat/wolf hybrid.

regsmutt said:
It's just Reptiles 2 with some fandom history behind it.

So bold but so correct

dba_afish said:
from the source:

[...]a snake or a cat or wolf
"Scawlf" i guess?...

so, you kinda hit the nail on the head there, that's actually not a furred snake, it's a snake/cat/wolf hybrid.

So, a (hybrid) snake with fur. A (hybrid) furred snake, if you will. Yes, things get a bit weird when dealing with hybrids, always have always will, but I don't see the problem here. If scalie isn't going to mean simply "covered in scales" (just as we don't define "furry" as "covered in fur", e.g. for not_furry), I don't see the problem with dragon implying scalie (directly or indirectly). A furred_dragon is a dragon covered with fur instead of scales, and a dragon is a reptilian/scalie creature, so a furred_dragon is a scalie/furred_scalie as much as a furred_snake is.

A scalie is an anthropomorphized reptilian animal as a furry is an anthropomorphized mammalian (non-human) animal. Sometimes "furry" gets an expanded usage to include any anthropomorphized animal, just as sometimes "scalie" gets an expanded usage to include marine animals.

Maybe mythological creatures should be exempt from taxonomy?
Since reptiles are in the Class layer, things like Dragons should just be in a pretend classification of mythological instead perhaps?

dba_afish said:
honestly, I don't see why we don't just deprecate the term entirely and then alias it to reptile. the term seems to already mean "reptile but not kinda not" but like, we don't have that for mammal or fish or mollusk or arthropod or amphibian. we just have scalie and avian, weird "kinda-kinda-not"-taxon tags that exist because ???; we have these two tags that seemingly only exist so that fictional reptiles and birds don't need to be implied to reptile and bird, when that's what we do with everything else.

Fluffy pony? That's a mammal.
Salmonid? Obviously a fish.
Inkling? Well that's a cephalopod, therefore a mollusk.
Indrel? Arthropod. _{^{(expected xenomorph to imply but it dosn't for some reason)}}
Keronian? Amphibian.

Koopa? That's certainly no reptile I've ever seen, call it "scalie".
Loftwing? Well that's definitely not a bird, call it an "avian".

I just don't get the reasoning for it...

On the contrary, I'd much rather go the other direction and add some broader tags for those other missing categories. I think scalie and avian are useful. Like, do we really want gryphon implying bird? You could call them bird hybrids, as that's technically what they are, but... that just feels wrong, I dunno.

That said, I would be fine with koopa implying turtle since they're very much just anthro turtles. The utility of scalie, I think, is more for things that aren't directly based on any particular reptiles in a taxonomic sense... like dragons. Or deathclaws, which I guess are originally based on chameleons but diverge so far from what a chameleon normally looks like that I feel like even the basic reptile tag is a stretch, so I do prefer scalie for things like that. I still see an important niche for these one-step-broader tags that can be used for broadly grouping vaguely related species, and can also be used as a catch-all for "I don't even know what this is but it kinda looks like x". A lot of stuff you'll find under scalie spectags:1 and avian spectags:1 are interesting. Many are just missing the more specific tags (which is still a regular issue with reptile), but then there's a lot of stuff like post #5557872 that's just... what even is that? Maybe some kinda dragon? Maybe not even that? But definitely some kinda vaguely-reptilian scalie thing. Or like, post #4553247 - do we really want to tag this as bird because of the somewhat bird-like face?

spe said:
but then there's a lot of stuff like post #5557872 that's just... what even is that? Maybe some kinda dragon? Maybe not even that? But definitely some kinda vaguely-reptilian scalie thing. Or like, post #4553247 - do we really want to tag this as bird because of the somewhat bird-like face?

I know those are probably rhetorical questions, but I'm pretty sure that that first one is a type of bird from Naruto
No idea if that's based on a real bird or not
And the second one is just a person technically with a plague-doctor mask

spe said:
On the contrary, I'd much rather go the other direction and add some broader tags for those other missing categories. I think scalie and avian are useful. Like, do we really want gryphon implying bird? You could call them bird hybrids, as that's technically what they are, but... that just feels wrong, I dunno.

it's a eagle with its butt cut off and lions's back half welded in place, it's at least mostly a bird.

spe said:
That said, I would be fine with koopa implying turtle since they're very much just anthro turtles. The utility of scalie, I think, is more for things that aren't directly based on any particular reptiles in a taxonomic sense... like dragons. Or deathclaws, which I guess are originally based on chameleons but diverge so far from what a chameleon normally looks like that I feel like even the basic reptile tag is a stretch[...]

they still look a hellalalot like a reptile even if they don't look like any specific reptile, all of their features (sans their stance/build) seem like they're derived from some real reptile's traits, although with some traits, like their chameleon horns, are modified and exaggerated to near-unrecognizable.

spe said:
[...]so I do prefer scalie for things like that. I still see an important niche for these one-step-broader tags that can be used for broadly grouping vaguely related species, and can also be used as a catch-all for "I don't even know what this is but it kinda looks like x".

I mean, that's kinda what the class taxon-level species tags already do without scalie and avian though. I don't really see the advantage of that extra layer.

spe said:
there's a lot of stuff like post #5557872 that's just... what even is that? Maybe some kinda dragon? Maybe not even that? But definitely some kinda vaguely-reptilian scalie thing. Or like, post #4553247 - do we really want to tag this as bird because of the somewhat bird-like face?

I can't even tell what that first one's supposed to be, save for the scales, it dosn't seem reptilian at all, honestly. although other posts of the same character say snake, so...

I don't really think plague_knight should be getting tagged with avian even, for the most part. his mask/face is vaguely bird-like but it's mostly just what a plague_mask looks like... I guess those nostrils there imply bird-ness, but that'd be bird_humanoid, there's no reason to believe that he's an anthro.

Okay I guess that Naruto parody/bird thing was wrong
I think it's a bipedal Eastern dragon?? Or maybe a Kappa with that face plate...

spe said:
...but then there's a lot of stuff like post #5557872 that's just... what even is that? Maybe some kinda dragon? Maybe not even that? But definitely some kinda vaguely-reptilian scalie thing.

Apparently, she's some sort of loong (Eastern dragon) that's just one step away from being a kemonomimi. https://x.com/monodiensfw/status/1886784537231024213