Aliasing lizardman → lizardfolk
Link to alias

Reason:

Occuring in both D&D and in Warhammer are anthropomorphic lizard people known initially as "Lizardmen." I'm not sure about Warhammer's, but D&D's were renamed to Lizardfolk in the third edition.
It would also fit in with our existing mermaid -> merfolk alias.

Warhammer still uses lizardmen ... I guess they're not as politically correct as D&D (although it's probably because in Warhammer you don't actively roleplay as the characters afaik...so they don't have to worry about providing gender-neutral characters).

So you can't alias this...it's still in-use by a copyright. You could go through and change "lizardmen" to "lizardfolk" on D&D posts considering they made the switch.

Well. Technically this is also an issue of disambiguation.
After all Lizardfolk is most correct for a species I suppose, but then you have the character Lizardman from soul calibur. So...

This is another case of the "man" part meaning human, referring to their half human form. Even the female ones are called lizardmen.

Are there enough noticeable differences between lizardmen and anthro lizards to warrant the existence of the lizardman tag?

Also, the Soul Calibur character is mostly under his real name, Aeon Calcos.

Isn't there also lizardmen in the Starfox/Krystal games?

BlueDingo said:
Are there enough noticeable differences between lizardmen and anthro lizards to warrant the existence of the lizardman tag?

Unless there are franchises that specifically call certain characters "lizardman" I don't think there is a serious use for the tag.

lizardmen and lizardfolk have uses to denote specific fantasy races, but lizardman just sounds like another word for male anthro lizard.

Peekaboo said:
Isn't there also lizardmen in the Starfox/Krystal games?

They're dinosaur-based.

Based on the way this tag is used, it is more like a blend of anthropomorphic lizards, dinosaurs and crocodilians than a specific species.
I don't see a reason for keeping this tag, many of the creatures you find in the posts tagged with it aren't even lizards.

Dyrone said:
Warhammer still uses lizardmen ... I guess they're not as politically correct as D&D (although it's probably because in Warhammer you don't actively roleplay as the characters afaik...so they don't have to worry about providing gender-neutral characters).

So you can't alias this...it's still in-use by a copyright. You could go through and change "lizardmen" to "lizardfolk" on D&D posts considering they made the switch.

Not how it works. Copyrights use "Mermaids" and we still use Merfolk.

BlueDingo said:
Are there enough noticeable differences between lizardmen and anthro lizards to warrant the existence of the lizardman tag?

As long as the species looks like what the artist claims it is, I've been told we can tag the species. Unless either I misunderstood, or things have changed, yes, there is reason to tag it.

Furrin_Gok said:
Not how it works. Copyrights use "Mermaids" and we still use Merfolk.

A mermaid is a real-life legendary creature...no copyright can claim that. It's free to change cause it was never theirs.

The term "lizardmen" is very specific to the Warhammer universe, no other major copyright is using it. Google "lizardmen"...tell me top hit, and look at this Wikipedia disambiguation page ... see any other hits for "lizardmen"? NOPE.

In fact I don't see any other hits for "lizardfolk" either other than D&D...meaning it can be used to describe characters that we KNOW come directly from that series, as fans of that series will be expecting it, but I see no reason to expand it further than that. I don't see any specific ground that "lizardfolk" covers that "anthro scalie lizard" doesn't.

So at the end of the day you're basically trying to alias one very specific fantasy race into another very specific fantasy race. That's not how it works.

Dyrone said:
A mermaid is a real-life legendary creature...no copyright can claim that. It's free to change cause it was never theirs.

>real-life
>legendary

This is extraordinarily confusing wording at best.

Dyrone said:
However...the term "lizardmen" is very specific to the Warhammer universe. Google "lizardmen"...tell me top hit, and look at this Wikipedia disambiguation page any other hits for "lizardmen"? NOPE.

Your supposed link to the disambiguation page leads nowhere in particular. Here

EDIT: I also cringe slightly at someone citing Wikipedia, of all things.

Kavellrist said:
>real-life
>legendary

This is extraordinarily confusing wording at best.

I knew someone was going to trip over that. What I'm saying is that at one time in the past many people believed mermaids to be real things. They were invented so long ago no one really has a lockdown on the word "mermaid"...it's not something specific to a single franchise.

Kavellrist said:
Your supposed link to the disambiguation page leads nowhere in particular. Here

EDIT: I also cringe slightly at someone citing Wikipedia, of all things.

I fixed the link now. Also I cringe at someone thinking Wikipedia somehow isn't good enough for a discussion involving furry (or in this case scalie) porn. Sorry professor! I'll only cite sources from peer-reviewed journals from now on.

You're wasting your time with Dyrone. He's just Warhammer fanboying it up and will refuse to cede a single point to you.

The reason he can't find any lizardmen besides D&D is because every single fantasy game / movie / anything that came out after D&D, including Warhammer, stole its lizardfolk from D&D.

Age of Wonders and Soulcalibur are two more examples, both from 1999. In the former case, they are an entire playable race.

FibS said:
You're wasting your time with Dyrone. He's just Warhammer fanboying it up and will refuse to cede a single point to you.

I've actually ceded points many times when it makes sense. Latest one was to Genjar in the Witcher thread. I'm a big fan of The Witcher as well, but that didn't stop me from seeing logic. Maybe make better points and I'll agree with you.

FibS said:
The reason he can't find any lizardmen besides D&D is because every single fantasy game / movie / anything that came out after D&D, including Warhammer, stole its lizardfolk from D&D.

Age of Wonders and Soulcalibur are two more examples, both from 1999. In the former case, they are an entire playable race.

Soulcalibur was already brought up and dealt with...there is one character named "lizardman"...but he is better known by his real name Aeon Calcos. He's not even part of this discussion.

And the Age of Wonders race is literally "lizardmen", but the number of "age_of_wonders" posts on this site? Exactly zero.

So your two examples are terrible. Increase your skills...then find me again.

Also...do you really think that D&D was the FIRST series EVER to invent the idea of a lizard mixed with a man? Come on...that is just ridiculous. Like NO ONE ever thought of that before 1974...no...they just popularized the idea. What I'm saying is the idea of "stealing" is dumb because the idea of a lizardman is just so...basic...it just can't be stolen.

Dyrone said:

I fixed the link now. Also I cringe at someone thinking Wikipedia somehow isn't good enough for a discussion involving furry (or in this case scalie) porn. Sorry professor! I'll only cite sources from peer-reviewed journals from now on.

Wikipedia is not a substitute for a Google search and some actual research into the topic. Stop treating it like it is.

Kavellrist said:
Wikipedia is not a substitute for a Google search and some actual research into the topic. Stop treating it like it is.

Yes it is LOL. That's why encyclopedias exist, so we don't have to research everything from scratch.

I'm not even citing it academically...I'm using it as a barometer for what is culturally relevant. Obviously if people went out of their way to write Wikipedia articles about these things they have some significance.

Dyrone said:
Yes it is LOL. That's why encyclopedias exist, so we don't have to research everything from scratch.

I'm not even citing it academically...I'm using it as a barometer for what is culturally relevant. Obviously if people went out of their way to write Wikipedia articles about these things they have some significance.

Wikipedia is an exceedingly poor encyclopedia and an even poorer barometer of cultural relevance in regards to the topic at hand.

Kavellrist said:
Wikipedia is an exceedingly poor encyclopedia

Well you're just stuck in 2002. Maybe you should take your own advice...Google and do some actual research on Wikipedia's reliability.

Here's something to get you started:

http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica

Dyrone said:
Well you're just stuck in 2002. Maybe you should take your own advice...Google and do some actual research on Wikipedia's reliability.

Here's something to get you started:

http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica

Yeah, no. There is a very good reason (a host of them actually) why you will absolutely be laughed out of the classroom in any kind of higher ed for citing Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is extraordinarily prone to bias and poor sourcing for its articles, to say nothing of the frequent "edit wars" and such that rage on their more contentious articles.

Doing a Google search for "lizardman", "lizardmen", etc. and making sure to actually go past the first 3 pages' worth of links yields far more interesting and enlightening results than Wikipedia. The only reason to use Wikipedia is sheer, unbridled laziness.

Kavellrist said:
Doing a Google search for "lizardman", "lizardmen", etc. and making sure to actually go past the first 3 pages' worth of links yields far more interesting and enlightening results than Wikipedia.

Great...lets search "lizardmen" and look at page 4!

• Blood Bowl 2 - Lizardmen on Steam (this is a game set in the Warhammer universe)
• Lizardman - Reaper Miniatures :: Miniatures (Warhammer again)
• Lizardman - Monster Database (Enemy in a game called "Tree of Savior"...currently zero posts on e621)
• Plains of the Lizardmen (Lineage 2 Encyclopaedia - L2Wiki (There are 12 posts under "lineage_2"! None containing any lizardmen)
• lizardmen - Wiktionary (Explains that lizardmen is the plural of lizardman...not copyright related)
• Lizard Men (Spear) - WikiRaider (A lizard man with a spear is an enemy in "Lara Croft: Relic Run"...which has no posts on e621)

I'm not gunna go further. I think I've proven my point on how much of a COLOSSAL waste of time that was.

Dyrone said:
Great...lets search "lizardmen" and look at page 4!

• Blood Bowl 2 - Lizardmen on Steam (this is a game set in the Warhammer universe)
• Lizardman - Reaper Miniatures :: Miniatures (Warhammer again)
• Lizardman - Monster Database (Enemy in a game called "Tree of Savior"...currently zero posts on e621)
• Plains of the Lizardmen (Lineage 2 Encyclopaedia - L2Wiki (There are 12 posts under "lineage_2"! None containing any lizardmen)
• lizardmen - Wiktionary (Explains that lizardmen is the plural of lizardman...not copyright related)
• Lizard Men (Spear) - WikiRaider (A lizard man with a spear is an enemy in "Lara Croft: Relic Run"...which has no posts on e621)

I'm not gunna go further. I think I've proven my point on how much of a COLOSSAL waste of time that was.

Kryptonians (DC comics) have abilities not found in humans, but are identical to humans in appearance, thus, is pointless tag them differently.
The point here is: Does a lizardmen have some distinctive characteristic that distinguishes it from others anthropomorphic lizards, crocodilians or dinosaurs, hence justfying keep the tag?

O16 said:

The point here is: Does a lizardmen have some distinctive characteristic that distinguishes it from others anthropomorphic lizards, crocodilians or dinosaurs, hence justfying keep the tag?

Not usually, no. Unless the picture provides unmistakable context to hint at its subject's exact origin, an anthro lizard is an anthro lizard is an anthro lizard. The contents of the Argonian tag should probably receive the same scrutiny as well, as without some kind of definite context-providing material in the picture, an Argonian is nothing more than an anthro lizard.

EDIT: I'm actually skimming through the Argonian tag right now and there's so much shit in it that doesn't even make SENSE. Argonians do not have wings. Ever. Argonians do not have raptor-toe-claws, either, for that matter. How the fuck did some of this get approved under TWYS?

This
is not an Argonian. It makes no sense for it to be labeled an Argonian. Cybernetics do not even exist in the Elder Scrolls universe. This is an anthro reptilian cyborg.

This
is also not an Argonian. At no point are Argonians ever depicted with raptor-style toe-claws.

In order for a post to be tagged as Argonian under TWYS there would have to be some kind of distinct visual cue that you were actually dealing with a creature from the Elder Scrolls universe. Distinct clothing/armor/accessories, possibly.

The Khajiit tag is probably the same goddamn way, too. TWYS my ass.

O16 said:
Kryptonians (DC comics) have abilities not found in humans, but are identical to humans in appearance, thus, is pointless tag them differently.
The point here is: Does a lizardmen have some distinctive characteristic that distinguishes it from others anthropomorphic lizards, crocodilians or dinosaurs, hence justfying keep the tag?

Elves and Vulcans look alike, but get tagged separately. While anything that looks human is tagged as one, other species get tagged separately, based on what the source claims it is.

YouWereNeverMyFriend said:
This
is also not an Argonian. At no point are Argonians ever depicted with raptor-style toe-claws.

Actually

kamimatsu said:
Actually

That's not a raptor-style toeclaw.

It is possible to give argonians raptor-style feet using a mod. They don't normally have them.

Kavellrist said:

This
is not an Argonian. It makes no sense for it to be labeled an Argonian. Cybernetics do not even exist in the Elder Scrolls universe. This is an anthro reptilian cyborg.

"X thing doesnt exist in the canon universe so it cannot be tagged as this" is not really valid argument. crossovers are a thing and nothing stops people from drawing things that do not exist in the canon universe. i mean if you draw any canonical character from tes universe holding a gun, it doesnt suddenly strip their species and name tags just because guns do not exist in tes universe. also the character in that image does have chest scale pattern and face spikes typical to argonians so.. it looks like robot argonian.