The bulk update request #2059 is active.

Reason:

Followup BUR:
alias lizardman -> lizardman_(disambiguation) alias lizardfolk -> lizardman_(disambiguation) alias lizardmen -> lizardman_(disambiguation) alias lizardgirl -> lizardman_(disambiguation) alias lizardwoman -> lizardman_(disambiguation) category lizardman_(disambiguation) -> invalid

These tags are a mess.
"Lizardman" is the name of an anthropomorphic lizard race from two major franchises: Overlord and Warhammer. The lizardman tag is currently a random mix of both, as well as an important Soul Calibur character who is sometimes called "The Lizardman" but whose proper name is Aeon Calcos. Besides those, the tag contains a few lizardfolk from DnD, as well as plenty of reptilian characters either from franchises I don't recognize, or simply anthro lizard OCs that should have only been tagged lizard + anthro instead. The tag is also very close to several other tags.

Lizardfolk has also been included in this because it faces largely the same problem. The Warhammer and Overlord series both sometimes use the word "lizardfolk" interchangeably with lizardmen, although lizardmen is more or less the "official" name for the species in those series. However, this has caused the lizardfolk tag to be populated with several Warhammer and Overlord lizardmen as well. In addition, many of the results for lizardfolk also appear to be regular anthropomorphic reptiles with no particular relation to DnD, indicating that people seem to like to use this tag for any anthro reptile whether it's from a particular franchise or not.

Despite not sharing either name, both tags are also being used for lizard_(divinity), which already has its own tag, but seems to get tagged with these regardless.

This BUR aims to disambiguate both of these tags and establish suffixed variants for each of the major meanings for these tags along with the proper implications.

As a side note, I don't know why the franchise tag for Divinity is divinity:_original_sin_2. It appears that the tag divinity:_original_sin doesn't even exist. It seems weird to implicate the race specifically to that tag, but pretty much all the lizard_(divinity) posts have it, so I'm hoping that's correct. Someone more familiar with the franchise may be able to inform me on that decision.

I did some research and updated the BUR accordingly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity_(series)?wprov=sfti1

EDIT: The bulk update request #2059 (forum #328092) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #2059 (forum #328092) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #4682 is active.

Reason: changed the followup bur at the behest of multicolored pone

umbrella tag rather than disambiguation

side note: I just noticed that lizardman_(warhammer_fantasy) exists, which is probably not an ideal name as the species also exists in warhammer_age_of_sigmar, which is separate from Warhammer Fantasy. Therefore, aliasing it to lizardman_(warhammer).

EDIT: The bulk update request #4682 (forum #364077) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #4682 (forum #364077) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

scaliespe said:
create alias lizardfolk (2) -> lizardman (1633)
create alias lizardmen (0) -> lizardman (1633)
create alias lizardgirl (0) -> lizardman (1633)
create alias lizardwoman (0) -> lizardman (1633)

These should have been aliased to lizard, they're just generic lizard anthros. Some series/franchises use the term "lizardman" or "lizardfolk", but aside from that term and being some sort of lizard, they have nothing else in common, and undoubtedly people will use this for their own lizard characters unassociated with any franchise.

watsit said:
These should have been aliased to lizard, they're just generic lizard anthros. Some series/franchises use the term "lizardman" or "lizardfolk", but aside from that term and being some sort of lizard, they have nothing else in common, and undoubtedly people will use this for their own lizard characters unassociated with any franchise.

Rainbow Dash told me to do it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I might argue that the lizardmen/folk from these various franchises tend to be distinct from lizard anthros in the sense that they rarely, if ever, are anthropomorphic versions of actual lizard species, and most often contain traits not seen in lizards at all, ie. large horns, feathers, fur manes, etc. and that these would make an alias to lizard or reptile inaccurate, while still remaining too distinct a concept to alias under scalie, which is extremely broad. There does seem to be a relatively shared concept of a "lizardman" race across fantasy franchises, none of which are simply reducible lizard anthros. There is also a Wikipedia article indicating that the concept exists in folklore as well, thereby predating the fantasy genre. See the note at the top that '"Lizardman" redirects here,' though we obviously can't use Wikipedia's preferred term of "reptilian humanoid" as that has very different connotations on e621. But it remains enough of a notable trope to even have its own Wikipedia page, whereas simple anthropomorphic versions of most species don't.

Some OCs might end up in the tag, but as long as they fit that same trope, it wouldn't be an issue. If they literally are just an anthropomorphic lizard species with no visible relation to the fantasy lizardman trope, then they could simply be untagged. I doubt that will happen frequently enough to pose an issue, seeing as lizardman itself is still only at 2k with all the implications. Potential outliers can be easily found by searching lizardman -(the tags that imply it).

That being said, I think Argonian also ought to be included in the tag, though I didn't think of it at the time as its name is an outlier.

Just to make sure we're on the same base, what's the difference between a lizardman and a lizard?

strikerman said:
Just to make sure we're on the same base, what's the difference between a lizardman and a lizard?

scaliespe said:
I might argue that the lizardmen/folk from these various franchises tend to be distinct from lizard anthros in the sense that they rarely, if ever, are anthropomorphic versions of actual lizard species, and most often contain traits not seen in lizards at all, ie. large horns, feathers, fur manes, etc. and that these would make an alias to lizard or reptile inaccurate, while still remaining too distinct a concept to alias under scalie, which is extremely broad. There does seem to be a relatively shared concept of a "lizardman" race across fantasy franchises, none of which are simply reducible lizard anthros.

scaliespe said:
I might argue that the lizardmen/folk from these various franchises tend to be distinct from lizard anthros in the sense that they rarely, if ever, are anthropomorphic versions of actual lizard species, and most often contain traits not seen in lizards at all, ie. large horns, feathers, fur manes, etc. and that these would make an alias to lizard or reptile inaccurate, while still remaining too distinct a concept to alias under scalie, which is extremely broad. There does seem to be a relatively shared concept of a "lizardman" race across fantasy franchises, none of which are simply reducible lizard anthros.

I disagree. Two of the wiki's own examples for lizardman look like generic lizard anthros:
post #3454615 post #1823276
And other examples
post #3960969 post #3966277
Besides which, there are real lizard species with horns:
https://24.media.tumblr.com/83625b029a7a7a407fa925ae3688c63a/tumblr_mief0bg3BJ1rkxkkso1_1280.jpg
https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/fccfab10-b8f6-445f-be50-1b4345e41a77_1.3ab350636f0d7338ac05980fc4f9ce3c.jpeg?odnWidth=1000&odnHeight=1000&odnBg=ffffff

And we see people using the tag for generic lizard anthros and not because they're some franchise's "lizardman" race:
post #4037550 post #3964735 post #3986059 post #3958250 post #3926194 post #3903200

This really does just look like it's being used for what look like generic lizard/scalie anthros, some of which belong to a franchise that use the term "lizardman" or "lizardfolk" for their lizard/scalie characters (which are already tagged for that franchise). The lizardman tag itself is adding nothing.

watsit said:
I disagree. Two of the wiki's own examples for lizardman look like generic lizard anthros:
post #3454615 post #1823276
And other examples
post #3960969 post #3966277
Besides which, there are real lizard species with horns:
https://24.media.tumblr.com/83625b029a7a7a407fa925ae3688c63a/tumblr_mief0bg3BJ1rkxkkso1_1280.jpg
https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/fccfab10-b8f6-445f-be50-1b4345e41a77_1.3ab350636f0d7338ac05980fc4f9ce3c.jpeg?odnWidth=1000&odnHeight=1000&odnBg=ffffff

And we see people using the tag for generic lizard anthros and not because they're some franchise's "lizardman" race:
post #4037550 post #3964735 post #3986059 post #3958250 post #3926194 post #3903200

This really does just look like it's being used for what look like generic lizard/scalie anthros, some of which belong to a franchise that use the term "lizardman" or "lizardfolk" for their lizard/scalie characters (which are already tagged for that franchise). The lizardman tag itself is adding nothing.

On that last row-

first one is yu'hiss, which (outside of memes) definitely goes stereotypical lizardfolk
second one, the tagged lizardfolk is the one submerged in the water behind them, not the kobold up front
last one definitely fits a hunched over lizardfolk-

But a key thing here, at worst lizardfolk is a shorthand for lizards anthros, which people actively use much more than "lizard anthro", and there is no lizard_anthro tag-

With your argument to alias it to just "lizard" that will remove a term which people actively understand, use, and tag? Would that not force them to tag and search two different tags combined instead, rather than a commonly understood term?
After all, lizard tag definitely includes ferals as well

offline_user said:
With your argument to alias it to just "lizard" that will remove a term which people actively understand, use, and tag? Would that not force them to tag and search two different tags combined instead, rather than a commonly understood term?

Like every other species. We don't have species tags for cat_anthro, dog_anthro , bird_anthro, etc, tags. Why do lizards get special treatment with lizardman effectively just being lizard_anthro?

watsit said:
Like every other species. We don't have species tags for cat_anthro, dog_anthro , bird_anthro, etc, tags. Why do lizards get special treatment with lizardman effectively just being lizard_anthro?

My guess would be, because lizardman / lizardfolk is a commonly used term that people understand, and are - by your examples - actively being used?
As for cat_anthro i mean, catfolk being somewhat used, should that be removed too then?

I figure the "special treatment" is just because well, that's a commonly understood term that people are actively using, no?

If lizardman is aliased to lizard, then users who search for lizardman are supposed to instead search "lizardman anthro"?

offline_user said:
My guess would be, because lizardman / lizardfolk is a commonly used term that people understand, and are - by your examples - actively being used?

Tags being used doesn't automatically mean they can stay. We generally don't allow arbitrary special cases, where a certain type of tag isn't allowed, but is for a particular species/gender/whatever for no apparent reason.

offline_user said:
As for cat_anthro i mean, catfolk being somewhat used, should that be removed too then?

Catfolk is specifically for the MtG/WotC setting, not generic cat anthros, which is why it implicates wizards_of_the_coast. Though I would say the name encourages misuse by not being very clear about that. I'd alias away catfolk itself for being too ambiguous and generic, and make the tag catfolk_(mtg) or catfolk_(wotc) or something to make it clear it's not for general cat people.

offline_user said:
I figure the "special treatment" is just because well, that's a commonly understood term that people are actively using, no?

No, there have been plenty of "commonly understood" terms that people were actively using, until they were aliased away for being redundant or not in line with the site's general tagging principles.

watsit said:
Tags being used doesn't automatically mean they can stay. We generally don't allow arbitrary special cases, where a certain type of tag isn't allowed, but is for a particular species/gender/whatever for no apparent reason.

I guess one question i'd have is, then shouldn't kobold be aliased away too, under your reasoning for aliasing away lizardman?
Both are a species archetype which is spread across many different mythology and media, both have similar sources and usage, and both have similar broad usage?

As for the catfolk tag yeah I can definitely agree that if it's such a specified usage, appending it to specify mtg or wotc would definitely help with clarity

offline_user said:
I guess one question i'd have is, then shouldn't kobold be aliased away too, under your reasoning for aliasing away lizardman?

A kobold is a typically small lizard-dragon-like thing. It's usage here has historically it has been associated with D&D, but it has become a more general concept.

offline_user said:
Both are a species archetype

I disagree that lizardman/lizardfolk is an archetype. The tag is primarily used as a blanket for any and all species from franchises that uses the word lizardman or lizardfolk for their lizard people, regardless of what they actually look like, with a good helping of random scalie OCs. Just looking at the tag, it has a wide range of uses whose only common factor is being a lizard anthro. From Crusch Lulu to generic lizard anthro #3740432 and even lizard werewolves (all from the wiki's own examples), there is no archetype beyond being a lizard of some sort.

watsit said:
A kobold is a typically small lizard-dragon-like thing. It's usage here has historically it has been associated with D&D, but it has become a more general concept.

I disagree that lizardman/lizardfolk is an archetype. The tag is primarily used as a blanket for any and all species from franchises that uses the word lizardman or lizardfolk for their lizard people, regardless of what they actually look like, with a good helping of random scalie OCs. Just looking at the tag, it has a wide range of uses whose only common factor is being a lizard anthro. From Crusch Lulu to generic lizard anthro #3740432 and even lizard werewolves (all from the wiki's own examples), there is no archetype beyond being a lizard of some sort.

But that's my question, couldn't the same argument be applied to kobold with it becoming as you say, a more general concept?

I disagree that kobold is an archetype. The tag is primarily used as a blanket for any and all species from franchises that uses the word kobold for their short usually-lizard people, regardless of what they actually look like, with a good helping of random scalie OCs. Just looking at the tag, it has a wide range of uses whose only common factor is being a lizard anthro (and sometimes not even that). From polt_(monster_musume) to generic lizard anthro #3975903 and even whatever this would be, there is no archetype beyond being a sometimes-short sometimes-dragonish sometimes-lizard of some sort.

offline_user said:
But that's my question, couldn't the same argument be applied to kobold with it becoming as you say, a more general concept?

Except kobolds do have particular elements that distinguish them from general lizard anthros, typically things like horns and subtle draconic features, while also being relatively short and lithe. As the wiki says:

A kobold is part of a race of short, draconic humanoids originating from the pen and paper role-playing game, Dungeons & Dragons.

which separates it from being general lizard anthros. Kobolds may be lizard anthros, but not all lizard anthros are kobolds. Unlike lizardman, which any lizard anthro can qualify to be.

offline_user said:
polt_(monster_musume)

She should not actually be tagged kobold, but japanese_kobold which is specifically noted to be quite different from the modern western conception popularized by D&D. The wiki for japanese kobold even says:

The Japanese qualifier is used here to distinguish them from the unrelated reptilian kobolds popularized by Dungeons & Dragons.

Not to be confused with

• kobold - The species most commonly associated with the name “kobold,” these are short anthropomorphic reptilians that first appeared in Dungeons & Dragons.

If the kobold tag was used for anything-called-kobold, be it Germanic Folklore, Japanese Mythology, D&D, Warcraft, etc (which the wikis indicate it shouldn't be), I might agree that it should be aliased away for being too generic. But the wiki is pretty clear that kobold itself is for the reptilian-style popularized by D&D, not an umbrella catch-all for anything called a kobold, while the other variations have their own tags that should be used instead. That said, I probably would agree that kobold itself could be renamed to avoid confusing people into thinking it's for anything named "kobold". Perhaps kobold_(reptile), reptilian_kobold, or draconic_kobold (kobold_(dnd) doesn't seem appropriate since, even though they created and popularized the reptilian variation, D&D/WotC doesn't actually own the concept of a small lizard-dragon and it exists outside of D&D these days).

This is somewhat pointless to argue about at this point, as an admin directly told me to do it this way, and if you think it should be done differently then you’re probably better off creating a BUR to remove the tag and discuss it there rather than discussing on an already-approved thread. That being said, I do think you may have missed the point I made earlier…

watsit said:
I disagree. Two of the wiki's own examples for lizardman look like generic lizard anthros:
post #3454615 post #1823276

Neither of those look like any identifiable species of lizard. They’re vaguely lizard-like, which was the whole point of the tag. On the first one, there is definitely no species of lizard that has feet like that. That part looks like it was borrowed from a dragon or something. Possibly crocodile. The rest of the character doesn’t call to mind any specific lizard species, either.

The second character, besides not having any identifiable species, also has what appear to be either ears or horns. Lizards definitely do not have ears (besides earholes which, notably, are seldom seen on lizardmen) and while some have horns, none of them look anything like those, assuming they are horns and not ears.

We could keep picking through individual examples, but that’s not really productive. The point actually is that lizardmen are not even lizards. They are, in all “official” cases (that is, species currently implying the tag) just vaguely reptilian anthros at best. They frequently have traits not seen in any lizard, sometimes borrowed from other reptiles, sometimes from non-reptile species, and sometimes completely fictional; and they even frequently lack traits seen in all lizard species, like the aforementioned earhole.

I don’t think tagging them as lizard would even be valid. We tag something as lizard when it’s a lizard, not when it merely resembles one - otherwise we’d tag salamanders and tuatara as lizards. Those actually look much more like lizards than some real lizard species do, such as blind_lizards (amazing, that’s not even a tag yet). scalie anthro isn’t really a suitable replacement either due to how broad the scalie tag is, which would include mostly only things that are distinctly outside the definition of lizardman.

There is also, as I pointed out, a lizardman creature in folklore (goes by various names) which inspired the trend of lizardmen in fantasy. This is simply not the case for anthros of most specific species, making this a unique situation. And generally, we do have tags for creatures of folklore and mythology, the biggest example being dragon, which also has a similar, if not much greater diversity in individual appearance. I think getting rid of lizardman is sort of akin to getting rid of dragon in favor of just calling them reptiles, except that that would be much more egregious given the species’ popularity. What we have here is a sort of vague folklore/fantasy species, very much akin to dragon in that regard, which is lizard in name only, does not closely resemble any existing species besides simply being mostly reptile, and has enough cultural significance to be reproduced independently by several media franchises outside of its original folklore incarnation, all following the same general idea.

Due to the nature of this definition, it could also include original characters as well, as long as they’re based on that same concept. Being related to an existing franchise is not necessary, as it can also be based on the folklore lizardman, which has no franchise. As I suggested previously, though, anthros of actual lizards should be removed from the tag, and simply tagged with the more specific species instead. Lizard is already a very broad and diverse category. It’s like tagging fish. There is very likely a more specific tag you can use, assuming it is an actual lizard. Lizardmen are not.

I think that’s enough to warrant having a distinct species tag, personally. I had to put quite a bit of research into the revision of this BUR, whereupon I realized how much of cultural phenomenon the lizardman actually seems to be.