Implicating western_dragon → scalie
Link to implication

Reason:

Western dragon should never be tagged for non-scalie dragons. So this might work...?

Despite cases like post #854409 where it's a plushie Western Dragon, other things have been implicated so sure.

As a general principle I have to discourage anything that generally limits dragons to being 100% big green lizards that only breathe fire. I have to vote nay.

aurel said:
There are a lot of posts featuring western type/ furred dragons.

Those are two separate tags. Furred dragons aren't tagged as western dragons, and vice versa.

FibS said:
As a general principle I have to discourage anything that generally limits dragons to being 100% big green lizards that only breathe fire. I have to vote nay.

That's exactly what the western_dragon subtag is for. You may be confusing it with the generic dragon tag.

aurel said:
https://e621.net/post/index/1/furred_dragon%20western_dragon
oh? have fun retagging then.

Scalies are allowed to have fur. The point is that they aren't implicated or aliased together, though they aren't mutually exclusive. A lot of those I would qualify to have both tags.

Genjar said:
That's exactly what the western_dragon subtag is for. You may be confusing it with the generic dragon tag.

What I'm saying is that you're enforcing the notion that dragons, creatures which do not exist, have to be scaly "by default" and I don't approve.

aurel said:
https://e621.net/post/index/1/furred_dragon%20western_dragon
oh? have fun retagging then.

Done. Vast majority were correctly tagged (posts with multiple dragons of different types), with a few of mistags mixed in where someone had tagged manes as fur.

FibS said:
What I'm saying is that you're enforcing the notion that dragons, creatures which do not exist, have to be scaly "by default" and I don't approve.

Again, no.
This is an implication for a specific subtype. Not for dragons in general.

This is obviously quickly becoming yet another pointless "my kind is the right kind" pretend dragon taxonomy argument.

aurel said:
post #152594 This is a western dragon which happens to be furred

No, that's just a furred dragon.
Western dragon isn't tagged if there's no scaly bits, and furred dragon isn't tagged if there's no fur cover. As it says on the wiki.

It's a part of a trio: western_dragon = stereotypical scaled dragons, furred_dragon = furred dragons, feathered_dragon = feathery dragons.

Qmannn said:
Also, considering how much Genjar does for e621, I'm surprised he hasn't been elevated to a higher position by now so he can just make these changes himself.

They tried at one point.
But I'm busy enough already. I'd get even less tagging done if I had to take care of mod duties too.

Qmannn said:
Wait, haven't many eastern dragons been known to have fur?

Haku_(spirited_away). His head is furred, but otherwise, his body is scaled with a mane of hair going along his back. A good case of being Scalie but still having fur.

aurel said:
genjar pls :/
There should be tags to describe the body type primarily, and then the covering after that.
the body type is usually quite clear, the covering is not.

Now you seem like trying to toss the body type tagging and leave only the covering.

It's a species type tag, not a body shape tag.

aurel said:
genjar pls :/
There should be tags to describe the body type primarily, and then the covering after that. the body type is usually quite clear, the covering is not.

I understand what you're saying, but it is the most common of the various dragon types (or 'species', if you prefer). And the one that most people think of when they think of dragons: scaly, winged, quadrupedal, and fire-breathing. So I feel that we should only tag it for those, so that the users who want to search for (stereo)typical dragons can find them.

If western_dragon were to be tagged simply by the body shape (quadrupedal winged dragons) regardless of the 'covering' or wing type, then it'd have to be tagged for most of the dragons. Which would make it kind of pointless.

Qmannn said:
Also, considering how much Genjar does for e621, I'm surprised he hasn't been elevated to a higher position by now so he can just make these changes himself.

Genjar said:
They tried at one point.
But I'm busy enough already. I'd get even less tagging done if I had to take care of mod duties too.

I recall Slyroon saying that (s)he was Admin once, but didn't like it.

Truthfully, you're one of the most proficient users on e621, and one of a select few that bothers tagging to such a degree. I can see you as an Admin, one that focuses primarily on tagging, much like how Ratte focuses on tickets and how Parasprite focuses on the wiki. Everyone has their little specialty after all. But to each their own.

And as for this tag implication? Yeesh... I speak from experience on how this wouldn't work. Not all dragons are scalies, for the same reason that not all felines are cats and not all canines are dogs.

This is just one of those tags where it isn't absolute. This is the furry fandom after all, where taurs and hybrids and other bizarre freaks of nature are conjured every single day.

GameManiac said:
And as for this tag implication? Yeesh... I speak from experience on how this wouldn't work. Not all dragons are scalies, for the same reason that not all felines are cats and not all canines are dogs.

Again, I'm not trying to implicate all dragons. Only a subtag that's tagged for a specific type of dragon, which happens to be scaly. It's no different from the already existing feathered_dragon -> feathers implication.

Genjar said:
Again, I'm not trying to implicate all dragons. Only a subtag that's tagged for a specific type of dragon, which happens to be scaly. It's no different from the already existing feathered_dragon -> feathers implication.

There will still be oddball images where the presence of scales are difficult to determine of a "western dragon" because of multiple reasons in any given image.

Depending on the artist the presence of scales can be identifiable, or not. And for those, scalie wouldn't work, and neither would "*_scales" (although I'm certain I've mistagged a few images like that back when I misused my Privileges). "*_body" would fit most appropriately, even if it's vague.

It's like saying Rainbow Dash is a Pegasus for EVERY SINGLE IMAGE, when that clearly isn't the case. Some posts of the character have her with feathers, others as an alternate species.

GameManiac said:
There will still be oddball images where the presence of scales are difficult to determine of a "western dragon" because of multiple reasons in any given image.

Ah, now the question is: what should scalie be tagged for?
Because there's two schools of thought about that. It's used as a furry term for certain non-mammalian species, including reptiles, dinosaurs, and amphibians. The last two don't have scales. See http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Scalie. Nowadays, it's most commonly used on http://herpy.net.

Whereas some simply only tag it for creatures that have visible scales.

If we use the former definition (which is currently on the wiki), all western dragons should be scalies. The way it is currently used, scalie is a generic species category, similar to the mammal, marine and avian tags.

Genjar said:
Ah, now the question is: what should scalie be tagged for?
Because there's two schools of thought about that. It's used as a furry term for certain non-mammalian species, including reptiles, dinosaurs, and amphibians. The last two don't have scales. See http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Scalie. Nowadays, it's most commonly used on http://herpy.net.

Whereas some simply only tag it for creatures that have visible scales.

If we use the former definition (which is currently on the wiki), all western dragons should be scalies. The way it is currently used, scalie is a generic species category, similar to the mammal, marine and avian tags.

Astonishingly, scalie is implied by next to no species. Understandable, considering there are variables that would make the implications contradict with what the image is presenting. Not everything that would be scalie is considered scalie as long as artists experiment and create characters that defy natural realism.

For mammal, marine, and avian. They're reasonably simple because of fur, feathers, and fins. But even those have their oddball images, which are usually incorporated into hybrid.

GameManiac said:
For mammal, marine, and avian. They're reasonably simple because of fur, feathers, and fins. But even those have their oddball images, which are usually incorporated into hybrid.

Humans and dolphins are mammals, but don't have fur. Jellyfish and octopi are marine, but don't have fins. And avians don't always have feathers, although that's extremely rare.

And not all dragons and dinosaurs have scales, but they're still scalie. The point is, scalie is not the same thing as 'scaled'. It's simply a broad species category, similar to the other ones. (Nonetheless, I've always felt that amphibians don't quite fit in scalie. But actually overhauling the category would require so much work that I prefer not to think about that.)

GameManiac said:
Astonishingly, scalie is implied by next to no species.

kremling, reptile, argonian, iksar, guilmon, koopa

Odd, isn't it? Except for reptile, these species won't always be represented as scale covered (And even then, reptiles might not be), yet they're implicated.