Implicating lizalfos → scalie
Link to implication

Implicating lizalfos → the_legend_of_zelda
Link to implication

Reason:

Some implications for the The Legend of Zelda monster species of Lizalfos.

EDIT: The tag implication lizalfos -> scalie (forum #232970) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

-1 for the first one. Probably would be better to imply 'lizalfos' to 'lizard' instead, since they are anthropomorphic lizards ('scalie' would be included as well due to implication chain).

+1 for the second. Seems appropriate.

Note: you can do only one "official" implication/alias suggestion at a time, the others should just be included as related suggestions; there is no point in creating a link to nowhere.

I didn't even think of lizard... even though the original draft of the OP mentioned them as such. /facepalm

My only query is if people try tagging Stalizalfos as lizalfos and animated_skeleton. But, that doesn't sway my +1.

The tag implication lizalfos -> scalie (forum #232970) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

The bulk update request #7603 is pending approval.

create implication lizalfos (167) -> lizardman (3168)
create implication lizalfos (167) -> the_legend_of_zelda (27950)

Reason: Ancient request that never went through, but looks good to me.
The replies suggested lizard instead of scalie, but we have a lizardman tag now which exists specifically for species like this which don't really fit under lizard taxonomically, so I think it would be a better fit there.

lizardman seems like it's easy to take for any kind of lizard anthro. Even as a 'false lizard' kind of species, it's unnecessarily specific to anthros.

watsit said:
lizardman seems like it's easy to take for any kind of lizard anthro. Even as a 'false lizard' kind of species, it's unnecessarily specific to anthros.

They can be humanoid or even feral semi-anthro in some cases as well - and they are pretty distinctly not lizards, just vaguely reptile-like things without any more specific designation. Although this thread is more about whether or not lizalfos qualifies, not the validity of lizardman itself. That would probably be best discussed in its own thread. I was originally disambiguating lizardman but my BUR was changed by the admin handling it to make it its own species instead, so that's how we got here. Though, it is such a ubiquitous thing in the fantasy genre now that I can see the point in having a tag for it.

scaliespe said:
They can be humanoid or even feral semi-anthro in some cases as well - and they are pretty distinctly not lizards, just vaguely reptile-like things without any more specific designation.

That's what scalie is for:

Scalie, or scaly, is a generic term invented by the furry fandom for reptiles and other species (with actual scales or not) that have reptilian features

We recently invalidated cub because it was essentially just young + non-human as a pointless delineation, and lizardman is essentially scalie + anthro/humanoid:

A lizardman is not, strictly speaking, a lizard. It’s a vaguely reptilian creature with a humanoid or anthropomorphic appearance.

scaliespe said:
Although this thread is more about whether or not lizalfos qualifies, not the validity of lizardman itself.

Since I don't think lizardman is a good tag to begin with, I don't think lizalfos or anything else can qualify.

Saying that, even if it is otherwise a good tag, I don't think any species can imply it anyway. Given its description:

The key distinction to remember is that lizardmen are always anthro, humanoid, or semi-anthro, and are not based on nor resemble any real-life lizard species.

This would make it invalid to tag if a lizalfos is drawn as a full feral. Any species normally considered a "lizardman" shouldn't be tagged as it when drawn as a feral, or without any of the cultural flair or body type commonly associated with "lizardmen", or if it's given details resembling real lizards. A bunch of species recently had their implication to humanoid removed because a species doesn't dictate form, and this seems just as susceptible.

watsit said:
That's what scalie is for:

It's a more limited subset of scalie. Scalie is extremely broad, and includes all real species in addition to non-lizardman scalie things like dragons and nagas. This tag at least seems to serve a purpose for grouping together several distinct yet similar anthropomorphized reptile amalgam species. If it were to be replaced by anything, it would be something like hybrid + whatever species' traits are visible in the individual post - usually some combination of lizard, snake, dragon, dinosaur, and crocodilian, but not always the same set of tags since different posts may show or hide different features due to the angle or how the artist drew it. That's not particularly useful for searching, however, and it's expecting a lot more than we can usually get from the average uploader. Trying to replace this with scalie anthro isn't really a great solution because of how broad scalie is - that search will net results far beyond anything covered by lizardman.

We recently invalidated cub because it was essentially just young + non-human as a pointless delineation, and lizardman is essentially scalie + anthro/humanoid:
Saying that, even if it is otherwise a good tag, I don't think any species can imply it anyway. Given its description:
This would make it invalid to tag if a lizalfos is drawn as a full feral. Any species normally considered a "lizardman" shouldn't be tagged as it when drawn as a feral, or without any of the cultural flair or body type commonly associated with "lizardmen", or if it's given details resembling real lizards. A bunch of species recently had their implication to humanoid removed because a species doesn't dictate form, and this seems just as susceptible.

This would be an argument against having lizardman imply anthro or humanoid, which it does not. A feralized version of a lizardman could still be tagged as lizardman feralized, and that works because no specific form is implied by lizardman. The point here is that the species itself is not feral, alternate forms aside.

scaliespe said:
-snip-

not gonna lie, that all still just seems like it should be scalie to me. at best this sounds like the dozens of other weird hybrid tags that we've aliased away before.

dba_afish said:
not gonna lie, that all still just seems like it should be scalie to me. at best this sounds like the dozens of other weird hybrid tags that we've aliased away before.

Random hybrid species made by random users get aliased away because there's no consistency to them. Actual hybrid creatures from franchises, mythology, etc. are kept. In this case, it's several species from several different franchises that are all fairly similar in appearance which seems to warrant grouping them together. Or that's the theory, at least.

I did find one similar case: elf. This is a little different because there is also an elf in mythology, but we have individual franchises' elves all implying the elf tag - drow, night_elf, dark_elf, cra, blood_elf, elvaan, and there's also hylian which isn't currently implying elf, but probably should. We also have dunmer, altmer, bosmer, and falmer from the elder scrolls series which could get the tag. But it's similar in the sense that we've got an overarching tag for what people will recognize as a common fantasy race, with the individual depictions each implying the tag. You could just as easily make a case for replacing elf with humanoid_pointy_ears + humanoid, since the only consistent trait between all the different franchises is that they're humanoids with pointy ears.

scaliespe said:
This would be an argument against having lizardman imply anthro or humanoid, which it does not. A feralized version of a lizardman could still be tagged as lizardman feralized, and that works because no specific form is implied by lizardman.

Not according to the wiki. A feral character can't be tagged lizardman since

lizardmen are always anthro, humanoid, or semi-anthro, and are not based on nor resemble any real-life lizard species

If it's a feral, or resembles a real lizard species, it can't be a lizardman. Like how lizard_humanoid must be a humanoid, a lizardman must not be a feral (what about taurs?). Since any species can be made into a feral, or be given traits to make it resemble real lizards, it may not apply to some depictions of any given species.

This is the problem with lizardman. It really feels like a tag people started using because that's how various given settings called their lizard people, often with the trope of giving them tribal flair, and when it was pointed out that grouping all these disparate series-specific species under an umbrella tag basically just makes it for generic lizard or scalie anthros/humanoids with no commonality, tried to retrofit some description which doesn't gel, at least for me. Notably, it's self-contradictory: a lizardman is more general than a lizard but cannot be a lizard?

it is likely an amalgamation of various mythological reptilian humanoids, ... A lizardman is not, strictly speaking, a lizard. It’s a vaguely reptilian creature with a humanoid or anthropomorphic appearance. ... In particular, most depictions of lizardmen across folklore and franchises lack the physical characteristics that would identify them as lizard anthros. ... [they] are not based on nor resemble any real-life lizard species

It says they aren't based on or resemble a real-life lizard, but various species listed in the wiki are and do: the lizardmen of Overlord having some strong gecko and monitor_lizard vibes, for example. Argonians are also listed as an example of lizardmen, despite their appearance varying in every game in the series, as the designers use different real-life lizards and reptiles for inspiration. You say dragons and nagas are examples of non-lizardman scalies, but dragons and nagas are noted as being among the potential sources of the lizardman concept. lizard_(divinity) is listed as an example of lizardmen, which are based on dragons, and you say a lizardman can include dragon traits in an otherwise nondescript scalie species (which basically makes it a dragon). If you showed me post #3740432 without context, I'd have had no problem calling it a wingless_dragon.

scaliespe said:
Random hybrid species made by random users get aliased away because there's no consistency to them. Actual hybrid creatures from franchises, mythology, etc. are kept. In this case, it's several species from several different franchises that are all fairly similar in appearance which seems to warrant grouping them together. Or that's the theory, at least.

that's not what I meant by "hybrid tag"... hmm, that seems to be a term that's fallen out of use over the past few years.

when I say "hybrid tag" I mean that tag's definition is kinda just two or more existing tags but in one tag. so, like, cub would be a hybrid tag since it's definition was essentially the definition of young + anthro or young + anthro or young + taur - humanoid_taur.
lizardman seems to fit this definition pretty well.

we do allow some hybridized tags, but they're special cases, usually they're in the form of <adjective>_<noun>, they almost always feature gender, form, or age, and they're always very specific.
lizardman seems overly broad and oddly defined.

dba_afish said:
that's not what I meant by "hybrid tag"... hmm, that seems to be a term that's fallen out of use over the past few years.

when I say "hybrid tag" I mean that tag's definition is kinda just two or more existing tags but in one tag. so, like, cub would be a hybrid tag since it's definition was essentially the definition of young + anthro or young + anthro or young + taur - humanoid_taur.
lizardman seems to fit this definition pretty well.

we do allow some hybridized tags, but they're special cases, usually they're in the form of <adjective>_<noun>, they almost always feature gender, form, or age, and they're always very specific.
lizardman seems overly broad and oddly defined.

Oh, that. I usually hear the term ‘combination tag’ instead due to the fact that hybrid means something else here.

watsit said:
Not according to the wiki. A feral character can't be tagged lizardman since
If it's a feral, or resembles a real lizard species, it can't be a lizardman. Like how lizard_humanoid must be a humanoid, a lizardman must not be a feral (what about taurs?). Since any species can be made into a feral, or be given traits to make it resemble real lizards, it may not apply to some depictions of any given species.

This is the problem with lizardman. It really feels like a tag people started using because that's how various given settings called their lizard people, often with the trope of giving them tribal flair, and when it was pointed out that grouping all these disparate series-specific species under an umbrella tag basically just makes it for generic lizard or scalie anthros/humanoids with no commonality, tried to retrofit some description which doesn't gel, at least for me. Notably, it's self-contradictory: a lizardman is more general than a lizard but cannot be a lizard?
It says they aren't based on or resemble a real-life lizard, but various species listed in the wiki are and do: the lizardmen of Overlord having some strong gecko and monitor_lizard vibes, for example. Argonians are also listed as an example of lizardmen, despite their appearance varying in every game in the series, as the designers use different real-life lizards and reptiles for inspiration. You say dragons and nagas are examples of non-lizardman scalies, but dragons and nagas are noted as being among the potential sources of the lizardman concept. lizard_(divinity) is listed as an example of lizardmen, which are based on dragons, and you say a lizardman can include dragon traits in an otherwise nondescript scalie species (which basically makes it a dragon). If you showed me post #3740432 without context, I'd have had no problem calling it a wingless_dragon.

I think you may be putting a bit too much stock in what the wiki says, as they can be edited by anyone and this is a fairly recently established tag. The wiki can be edited to account for those things.

I’m not sure where the character in post #3740432 comes from, as there is no copyright tag and nothing indicated at the source, so it may as well be a wingless dragon. I’m not really sure what distinguishes it either. Tagged as lizardman by the uploader a year ago. Could just change it, maybe. Though, the character doesn’t look particularly dragon-y to me either. Doesn’t have the head shape or big horns that I usually expect on dragons - not that those are strictly required, but still. Lizardman is probably as good as wingless dragon, but I don’t know what I’d call it without any context.

Notably, it's self-contradictory: a lizardman is more general than a lizard but cannot be a lizard?

I don’t see why it can’t be partly lizard. I just wouldn’t use it for characters that are recognizable as specific lizard species. Like if a character is just a gecko, tag it as gecko. No need for a lizardman tag there.
The name is perhaps a little contradictory as some may look more like crocodiles or snakes, but it’s such a widely used term for these kinds of characters at this point (usually either lizardman or lizardfolk) that we’d be going against the grain by trying to change it. Wikipedia calls them "reptilian humanoids," but that obviously won’t work for our purposes.

The bottom line is that there’s a common fantasy trope of vaguely reptilian anthro/humanoid species, with a bunch of different franchises having their own take on the idea, but they all still share some common thread. It’s like elves - they don’t belong to any one franchise, and each franchise has its own take on the idea, but they’re all based on a common idea. Some ditch the name "elf" entirely and call them something else - ie. hylian - but we still recognize them as elves. So, do we just… not tag them as elf? Because they don’t have an entirely consistent depiction? Because they overlap with other pointy-eared humanoids ie. humanoid_pointy_ears -elf -hylian?

scaliespe said:
I think you may be putting a bit too much stock in what the wiki says, as they can be edited by anyone and this is a fairly recently established tag. The wiki can be edited to account for those things.

I don't even know what it's trying to be. I'm just getting a vaguely defined "generic anthro/humanoid lizard-like scalie common to fantasy settings, but doesn't resemble a real lizard species, maybe", a very "I'll know it when I see it" kind of thing. The only thing I get from the tag is it's for whatever is called a lizardman at its source or by fans, without any common traits beyond being an anthro or humanoid scalie. What makes lizardfolk_(dnd) or lizard_(divinity) fit for "lizardman", but not kobold or dragonborn_(dnd)?

I mean, it'd be one thing if it was like "a monstrous / beastly lizard-like scalie anthro". Kind of like how werewolf could be dealt with to separate it from generic wolf anthros/humanoids or wolf transformations. Some specific trait to set it apart and can be judged independently. Though that would exclude a lot of what lizardman currently covers, like lizardman_(overlord), and likely sow confusion for having a more restrictive definition (it's called a lizardman in the series or by the artist, so why isn't it tagged lizardman here?).

scaliespe said:
I’m not sure where the character in post #3740432 comes from, as there is no copyright tag and nothing indicated at the source, so it may as well be a wingless dragon. I’m not really sure what distinguishes it either. [...] Lizardman is probably as good as wingless dragon, but I don’t know what I’d call it without any context.

And this is why the tag sends up red flags. You can't just look at it and tell, you need the source copyright or setting to know whether it's called a lizardman there, or is considered a lizardman by the community or artist, as opposed to being a wingless dragon or generic lizard/scalie anthro. It comes across as something primarily to just group together whatever is called "lizardman" regardless of what it actually looks like. Is there anything that's called a lizardman in its source that wouldn't fit the lizardman tag?

scaliespe said:
It’s like elves - they don’t belong to any one franchise, and each franchise has its own take on the idea, but they’re all based on a common idea. Some ditch the name "elf" entirely and call them something else - ie. hylian - but we still recognize them as elves. So, do we just… not tag them as elf? Because they don’t have an entirely consistent depiction? Because they overlap with other pointy-eared humanoids ie. humanoid_pointy_ears -elf -hylian?

At their core, elves are human-like non-animal humanoids with humanoid pointy ears. Not the most defined of species, and I'm sure there plenty of edge cases that could be picked apart, but it has a defined set of characteristics that it must or must not have that separate it from being any old generic humanoid. You don't need to know where it came from to look at it and say whether it fits being tagged as elf. In fact, we shouldn't consider what something is or isn't called at the source when applying generalized species tags (link doesn't have to be called an elf in the Zelda games to still be tagged elf here, and argonians being called lizards in TES doesn't mean lizard necessarily applies here).

I'm in the camp that if lizardman is to be kept (and it should), it needs to have a narrow definition.
Even species that are called 'lizardman' in fiction shouldn't get an automatic pass. If it doesn't look like the trope, then it shouldn't be in the tag. We do the same thing with some other species tags already.

I'd say that it should require some visual indication of 'tribal', as that's a large part of the lizardfolk trope. Lizard anthro wearing regular clothes in contemporary setting is just an anthro.

watsit said:
I don't even know what it's trying to be. I'm just getting a vaguely defined "generic anthro/humanoid lizard-like scalie common to fantasy settings, but doesn't resemble a real lizard species, maybe", a very "I'll know it when I see it" kind of thing. The only thing I get from the tag is it's for whatever is called a lizardman at its source or by fans, without any common traits beyond being an anthro or humanoid scalie. What makes lizardfolk_(dnd) or lizard_(divinity) fit for "lizardman", but not kobold or dragonborn_(dnd)?

The tag’s definition can certainly be refined. The wiki is not set in stone by any means.

Since you mention it, kobolds and dragonborn would both probably fit the bill, at least under the current definition. Dragonborn are a bit weird with the tentacle hair and lack of tails - if the definition is going to become more restrictive, they’ll probably get left out, which is fine. I wasn’t sure about them to begin with, hence why I never tried implying them, even though they probably technically fit as it currently stands. Kobold is a closer fit, but the lizardman trope is usually used for characters that are roughly person-sized (or sometimes a bit bigger), but kobolds canonically are very small, so that would be a bit different. Also there’s just the fact that the furry fandom has taken that particular species and completely run amok with it, so including it might necessarily force a broader definition upon the tag than would be desirable. Also, it would sort of drown out all the other species.

I mean, it'd be one thing if it was like "a monstrous / beastly lizard-like scalie anthro". Kind of like how werewolf could be dealt with to separate it from generic wolf anthros/humanoids or wolf transformations. Some specific trait to set it apart and can be judged independently. Though that would exclude a lot of what lizardman currently covers, like lizardman_(overlord), and likely sow confusion for having a more restrictive definition (it's called a lizardman in the series or by the artist, so why isn't it tagged lizardman here?).

It’s funny that you mention Overlord lizardmen because the males specifically tend to be more bestial like that - it’s just the females that aren’t. The species is notably sexually dimorphic. lizardman_(overlord) male solo
This is a trait shared with lizard_(divinity), and maybe some others, but I’m not familiar with the lore of many of these species.

A more restrictive definition leaving out some particular species that shares the name would probably be fine - it wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened. A few mistags are inevitable, but perfectly manageable unless it ends up being some extremely popular species that’s left out - and none of these are particularly popular.

At their core, elves are human-like non-animal humanoids with humanoid pointy ears. Not the most defined of species, and I'm sure there plenty of edge cases that could be picked apart, but it has a defined set of characteristics that it must or must not have that separate it from being any old generic humanoid. You don't need to know where it came from to look at it and say whether it fits being tagged as elf. In fact, we shouldn't consider what something is or isn't called at the source when applying generalized species tags (link doesn't have to be called an elf in the Zelda games to still be tagged elf here, and argonians being called lizards in TES doesn't mean lizard necessarily applies here).

Well, we’re already halfway there with lizardman. We may as well figure out how to best define it. So… it’s a reptile amalgam creature without being any specific real-life species. Bipedal, except maybe when feralized. A tribal and/or possibly bestial aesthetic seems to be a core element of the trope, as Genjar points out. Roughly person-sized or maybe a bit bigger, so kobolds are out. They don’t usually seem to have hair, which is one thing that regular lizard anthros often do have. They may have feather hair or manes instead. Though, this would actually exclude lizardman_(that_time_i_got_reincarnated_as_a_slime), so that would have to be taken into consideration before deciding on that… We might be able to say that they should have lizard-shaped heads, which would sort of justify the 'lizardman' name. This would exclude anything with a head shaped more like a snake, crocodile, dinosaur, or any other reptile, as those are all quite different. Anything else…?

scaliespe said:
So… it’s a reptile amalgam creature without being any specific real-life species. Bipedal, except maybe when feralized. A tribal and/or possibly bestial aesthetic seems to be a core element of the trope, as Genjar points out.

I'm not against the idea, but this would make tagging them a bit more complicated since it would depend on separable details. It wouldn't be strictly based on the species, but how they're presented. e.g. a bulky lizard-like anthro wearing a loincloth and carrying a feather-adorned staff would be said to be "tribal"/"bestial" and so count for lizardman, but that same lizard wearing modern combat armor and carrying a hi-tech rifle would be just a plain lizard/scalie anthro and not a lizardman. It would need a better name if we go this route, something that better conveys the necessary attributes and won't be so easily confused for the dozens of preexisting "lizardman" species. It would be very likely for people to tag lizardman because that's how they're called by the artist or in the series, without realizing e6 has its own distinct definition (also I know this is overly pedantic, lizardman seems unnecessarily gendered or formed to me since it can apply to females and feral-leaning forms too; D&D uses the better-fitting term lizardfolk that I like better, though that still feels easy to misuse for anything that's called "lizardman").

watsit said:
I'm not against the idea, but this would make tagging them a bit more complicated since it would depend on separable details. It wouldn't be strictly based on the species, but how they're presented. e.g. a bulky lizard-like anthro wearing a loincloth and carrying a feather-adorned staff would be said to be "tribal"/"bestial" and so count for lizardman, but that same lizard wearing modern combat armor and carrying a hi-tech rifle would be just a plain lizard/scalie anthro and not a lizardman. It would need a better name if we go this route, something that better conveys the necessary attributes and won't be so easily confused for the dozens of preexisting "lizardman" species. It would be very likely for people to tag lizardman because that's how they're called by the artist or in the series, without realizing e6 has its own distinct definition (also I know this is overly pedantic, lizardman seems unnecessarily gendered or formed to me since it can apply to females and feral-leaning forms too; D&D uses the better-fitting term lizardfolk that I like better, though that still feels easy to misuse for anything that's called "lizardman").

Lizardfolk would probably work as a name too. I’d be wary of choosing anything besides one of those two, simply because the name should also be recognizable, even if it’s not a great descriptor. Most fans of the fantasy genre will be familiar with the concept of a lizardman/lizardfolk species because it’s so common within the genre, but they won’t know what the tag is even for if we try to come up with some new name for it that isn’t so established. I understand that the current term might be prone to mistags, though, but it’s not a huge tag so it shouldn’t be too hard to keep clean. As long as the most popular uses of the term are covered (namely D&D, Warhammer, maybe Overlord), it’ll probably be fine.