Implicating Koopa -> Scalie.

Reason: Being defined as turtle-like, all koopas should fit the scalie tag.

The turtle tag doesn't even implicate scalie though, so I'm assuming that a turtle isn't defined as a scalie.

720p said:
The turtle tag doesn't even implicate scalie though, so I'm assuming that a turtle isn't defined as a scalie.

Koopa should probably implicate turtle.

Turtle should implicate reptile, which already implicates scalie.

Koopa can be drawn as other species that aren't at all turtles and still be recognizeable as Koopa, so no such implication should be made.

Foobaria said:
Koopa can be drawn as other species that aren't at all turtles and still be recognizeable as Koopa, so no such implication should be made.

Do Koopas come without shells?

Digital_Kindness said:
Do Koopas come without shells?

They certainly could, if someone chose to draw them that way. You could still comfortably recognize King Koopa in a potato sack.

Digital_Kindness said:
Do Koopas come without shells?

Koopas can be shellless since Mario World (SNES). Have a spritesheet that confirms it, just look at the Koopas section. Or have a Yoshi's Island Koopa spritesheet (which focuses on just the koopas and not every enemy, and has better detail) you should already know it.

That said, I must go
post #177294

Foobaria said:
Koopa can be drawn as other species that aren't at all turtles and still be recognizeable as Koopa, so no such implication should be made.

You need to actually give examples. The statement is questionable. Someone else gave a shelless image picture that seems a valid argument against implicating koopas to turtle, but it does not establish that they shouldn't be implicated as scalies. Furthermore, the core of the argument isn't the statement, it's the picture.

This is an archive of pictures. Implications like this are an integral part of how it's kept clean and orderly. The best way to argue against an implication is to link to pictures in the archive for which the implication would be invalid.

There's no reason I need to give an example when simple logic will suffice. All over the site are characters drawn as multiple different species, and implications like this have been denied in the past for the same reason I specified.

An example of a different character: Twilight Sparkle has been drawn as a pony, a dog, a dragon, and a human, all four recognizeable as her because of hair, colour scheme, and cutie mark. No implication for Twilight Sparkle would be appropriate because of this.

*Casts lvl 5 thread necromancy*

Uh, the bowsette meme has kind of ruined the scalie implication here.

post #1676892 post #1677645 post #1670849

This is a minor and probably temporary inconvenience, but I just don't think it's a valid imp. anymore per the standards we usually use.

Ijerk said:
*Casts lvl 5 thread necromancy*

Uh, the bowsette meme has kind of ruined the scalie implication here.

post #1676892 post #1677645 post #1670849

This is a minor and probably temporary inconvenience, but I just don't think it's a valid imp. anymore per the standards we usually use.

*frowns a bit..* hmm.. . Koopa is a species. Koopas are scalie... I guess bowsette ought to be a koopa_humanoid.

SnowWolf said:
*frowns a bit..* hmm.. . Koopa is a species. Koopas are scalie... I guess bowsette ought to be a koopa_humanoid.

Wait, are animal_humanoids not supposed to be tagged with their base species? I'm not sure if that's said anywhere. Quite a few fox, dragon, etc._humanoids get tagged with fox, dragon, whatever (actually it's even more to have both "x"_humanoid and "x" on a post than just "x"_humanoid). I'm not sure if it says on any wiki pages. I mean, they're obviously not implying those tags, but nothing seems to be explicitly saying not to tag them like that.

darryus said:
Wait, are animal_humanoids not supposed to be tagged with their base species? I'm not sure if that's said anywhere. Quite a few fox, dragon, etc._humanoids get tagged with fox, dragon, whatever (actually it's even more to have both "x"_humanoid and "x" on a post than just "x"_humanoid). I'm not sure if it says on any wiki pages. I mean, they're obviously not implying those tags, but nothing seems to be explicitly saying not to tag them like that.

that was more meant to be thinking outloud rahter than a direct answer to the question, sorry :)

Well.. checking the top 10-ish *_humanoid tags...

cat_humanoid implies animal_humanoid and feline
fox_humanoid implies animal_humanoid
cephalopod_humanoid implies .. well, nothing.
wolf_humanoid implies animal_humanoid
rabbit_humanoid implies lagomorph and animal_humanoid
cow_humanoid implies Bovine and animal_humanoid
dog_humanoid implies animal_humanoid
dragon_humanoid implies animal_humanoid
equine_humanoid implies equine and animal_humanoid
mouse_humanoid implies animal_humanoid

Sooo... we're not exactly consistent.

If all fox_humanoids should be tagged fox, then fox_humanoid should imply that.

I don't know how I feel on it, honestly. There's a lot of aspects involved... I would need to give it a lot of thought... but I THINK i would lean towards fox_humanoid implying canine_humanoid which implies canine... but I dunno.

What's the official site stance? I"m not sure we have one.

But, I do know that looking at bowsette is an animal_humanoid -- looks a lot like a dragon_humanoid or turtle_humanoid actually...

Should a snake_humanoid be a scalie? most tags seem to say so... lamia does not imply snake_humanoid, but it does imply snake.. which implies reptile, which implies scalie...

....

I think my *personal* opinion would lean towards tagging fox and fox_humanoid, but that's me. So I'd say that the koopa_humanoids should probably be tagged koopa--and therefor, scalie. It's not the most correct feeling thing in the world, but if it was fox mccloud or pikachu being supercrowned, we wouldn't object to them implying mammal or whatever.

Much ike with many things, anyone wanting to sort out the false positives can -bowsette_meme or... -koopa_humanoid, if we actually decide to tag things with that.

SnowWolf said:
*frowns a bit..* hmm.. . Koopa is a species. Koopas are scalie... I guess bowsette ought to be a koopa_humanoid.

I think the idea is that scalie is used more like a descriptor than a real superspecies.
Dinosaur and dragon both imply *nothing*, because it's reasonable someone would draw one with feathers or fur. If someone drew a fluffy koopa (either regular or bowsette) would it really make sense to add a scalie tag?

We do have a few of these
post #1247724
which get a scalie tag through the reptile implication. But if it was a dinosaur rather than a snake I don't think that would fly, no?