The bulk update request #2655 has been rejected.

remove implication scalie_humanoid (6235) -> scalie (638144)
remove implication reptile (251235) -> scalie (638144)

Reason: These tags that imply scalie are messy or incorrect and need changing. Although I am very confused by what the scalie wiki description means and how the tag is used. I think scalie is any reptillian like creatures that fall under "furry". I am confused by the wiki because it doesn't explicitly say whether these tags fall under scalie.

Imply scalie_humanoid -> scalie is incorrect because it's used to portray humanoids that has some level of reptillian features, but are not scalies

Imply reptile -> scalie is messy as scalies can be reptiles, but animals that don't have furry characteristics and humanoids can be reptiles that aren't scalie

I'm not confident on this whole thing so please correct me

EDIT: The bulk update request #2655 (forum #337938) has been rejected by @Millcore.

What does it mean by the stuff I put in the script is missing? This is my first time trying a BUR

I'd say to go in, edit your BUR (click bulk update request #2655 at the top of your OP), and remove the brackets – [[ and ]] as you don't need them in a request.

Fixed it for you.
You do not need square brackets in the BUR script.

Just to clarify on the actual usage of the scalie tag:

“Scalie” is a term invented by the furry fandom to be akin to “furry” but specifically for reptilian and reptile-like species. It typically includes salamanders as well because they have strong reptilian characteristics despite being amphibians (amphibian used to imply scalie, but it was removed because frogs aren’t really considered scalie), as well as fictional and mythological reptilian species (dragon, Argonian, etc.), and furred versions of reptiles (furred_snake). It excludes other “scaly” species like fishes and pangolins because they’re not reptilian, as well as excluding birds - taxonomically considered reptiles, but generally excluded from this category because they lack any of the visual characteristics identifying other reptiles, and are instead placed in their own category, avian.

Like “furry,” the term does generally refer specifically to anthros of these species. However, that isn’t very useful from the point of view of E621, as we have an anthro tag specifically for that purpose. You could simply search anthro scalie to find actual scalies. As far as things like ferals and taurs go, you could think of it as a sort of umbrella term for all reptiles and reptile-like species like dragons (never mind that dragon doesn’t currently imply scalie…), which has its uses, even though it doesn’t quite align with the fandom definition of the word.

As for humanoids, there has been some debate in the past about having the *_humanoid tags imply the main species. Some think they should be kept separate as they are generally closer to humans than the species they are based on, and so people searching for those species probably don’t expect them as results. But there are some arguments in favor of keeping the implications as well, not least of which is the fact that several hundred thousand posts would have to be manually cleaned up.

The bulk update request #2655 (forum #337938) has been rejected by @Millcore.

scaliespe said:
Just to clarify on the actual usage of the scalie tag:

“Scalie” is a term invented by the furry fandom to be akin to “furry” but specifically for reptilian and reptile-like species. It typically includes salamanders as well because they have strong reptilian characteristics despite being amphibians (amphibian used to imply scalie, but it was removed because frogs aren’t really considered scalie), as well as fictional and mythological reptilian species (dragon, Argonian, etc.), and furred versions of reptiles (furred_snake). It excludes other “scaly” species like fishes and pangolins because they’re not reptilian, as well as excluding birds - taxonomically considered reptiles, but generally excluded from this category because they lack any of the visual characteristics identifying other reptiles, and are instead placed in their own category, avian.

Like “furry,” the term does generally refer specifically to anthros of these species. However, that isn’t very useful from the point of view of E621, as we have an anthro tag specifically for that purpose. You could simply search anthro scalie to find actual scalies. As far as things like ferals and taurs go, you could think of it as a sort of umbrella term for all reptiles and reptile-like species like dragons (never mind that dragon doesn’t currently imply scalie…), which has its uses, even though it doesn’t quite align with the fandom definition of the word.

As for humanoids, there has been some debate in the past about having the *_humanoid tags imply the main species. Some think they should be kept separate as they are generally closer to humans than the species they are based on, and so people searching for those species probably don’t expect them as results. But there are some arguments in favor of keeping the implications as well, not least of which is the fact that several hundred thousand posts would have to be manually cleaned up.

I think making the scalie tag easier to search is nice since when searching scalie people would be looking for furry content, not non furry posts. It would make it so that you don't have to resort to using more tags than you should. Like for example if I want to search for scalies in general without getting unrelated posts, I would have to put in "scalie anthro* feral* -humanoid" which is unneccessary. I think it would be a nice change even if there's still a ton of posts that would be mistagged after the change, better to do it now for the future than never I guess? Not sure how that's an argument in favor of just not making the change at all.

dinbyy said:
Like for example if I want to search for scalies in general without getting unrelated posts, I would have to put in "scalie anthro* feral* -humanoid" which is unneccessary.

If I want to find all kinds of scalies, I would expect to find them under scalie, not scalie scalie_humanoid. It's not as if scalie_feral, scalie_anthro, or scalie_taur are distinct tags, they're all included under scalie, so there's no reason to have scalie_humanoid be a separate thing needed to search.

watsit said:
If I want to find all kinds of scalies, I would expect to find them under scalie, not scalie scalie_humanoid.

Because most people aren't interested in unrelated non furry content when they search an umbrella tag that is about furries with reptillian features. So why would non furry content be included in a tag that is not related to them?

scaliespe said:
As for humanoids, there has been some debate in the past about having the *_humanoid tags imply the main species. Some think they should be kept separate as they are generally closer to humans than the species they are based on,

But they are still that species, so it's correct to the definition of the tag. For scalie_humanoid to be implying scalie on the other hand, is not

dinbyy said:
Because most people aren't interested in unrelated non furry content when they search an umbrella tag that is about furries with reptillian features. So why would non furry content be included in a tag that is not related to them?

How's it unrelated? If a user searches for scalie, they should expect to find scalie content, be it feral, anthro, taur, or humanoid, just as if they search feline, they expect to find feline content, be it feral, anthro, taur, or humanoid. Scalie humanoids are furry content as much as feline humanoids are. Furry content includes more than anthros.

watsit said:
How's it unrelated? If a user searches for scalie, they should expect to find scalie content, be it feral, anthro, taur, or humanoid, just as if they search feline, they expect to find feline content, be it feral, anthro, taur, or humanoid. Scalie humanoids are furry content as much as feline humanoids are. Furry content includes more than anthros.

I mean, if you go to Google Images and search “furries,” you’ll pretty much get nothing but anthros, whether artwork or pictures of fursuits. I’d say ferals, taurs, and humanoids are more furry-adjacent concepts rather than truly “furry” in the original sense - likewise, scalie was a term created by the fandom for reptilian furries, ie. anthros, rather than being a specific species like feline is, which must, by definition, apply to any manifestation of the species.

That being said, “scalie” is being used in a somewhat unique sense here to include these non-anthro forms, probably for the main reason that to limit it to anthros would mean scalie would have to be manually tagged on every single post, as any implication could be invalid. Scalie is already badly undertagged as it is, so I think it’s better to leave this exception so the tag doesn’t fall into complete disarray.

dinbyy said:
I think making the scalie tag easier to search is nice since when searching scalie people would be looking for furry content, not non furry posts. It would make it so that you don't have to resort to using more tags than you should. Like for example if I want to search for scalies in general without getting unrelated posts, I would have to put in "scalie anthro* feral* -humanoid" which is unneccessary. I think it would be a nice change even if there's still a ton of posts that would be mistagged after the change, better to do it now for the future than never I guess? Not sure how that's an argument in favor of just not making the change at all.

There’s also the fact that this would mean scalie could never be added through implication. Most tags are added through implication, so scalie would most likely fall into disuse if we removed its implications. I feel like it’s better to have the tag be applied as widely as possible, and then just use those extra tags for searching. You’ll get much better search results that way.

Example: dragon does not currently imply scalie, so the scalie tag is almost never added to dragon posts even when they’re obviously scalie. See: dragon -scalie. If we did this for all species, the tag would rarely be used and it would become virtually useless.