The tag implication #52041 kobold -> scalie has been rejected.

Reason: The wiki for Scalie recognises kobolds as being apart of this group, despite this an absurd number of posts exists when searching ‘kobold -scalie’

While the existence of furred_kobolds exist, it should be important to acknowledge that other species (such as furred_snake) are explicitly labeled as being apart of the scalie group.

EDIT: The tag implication kobold -> scalie (forum #379167) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Remember that dogbolds and ratbolds exist, and have existed, longer than the D&D lizard kobolds, and indeed, those were predated even locally by their goblinoid ancestors. Kobold is no more descriptive than "fairy" or "troll" in terms of what manner of beast it refers to.

There's also the issue of hybrids, if a part of it is kobold we tag kobold, but the creature as a whole may not be a scalie

snpthecat said:
There's also the issue of hybrids, if a part of it is kobold we tag kobold, but the creature as a whole may not be a scalie

That could apply to any species that currently implicates scalie, like deathclaw, iksar, argonian, koopa, etc. There's also interesting implications like furred_snake -> snake -> reptile -> scalie. The wiki explains:

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, such as dragons.

A common point of confusion with scalies is that they are any species with scaly skin. There are several notable exceptions to this idea, as the tag only requires reptilian features, not scales. For creatures with scales, just use the scales tag instead.

One could make the argument that the kobold tag here is specifically for the D&D-based variety (indeed, the wiki page even describes that in the first line, "A kobold is part of a race of short, draconic humanoids originating from the pen and paper role-playing game, Dungeons & Dragons."), and that other variations of kobolds should use different tags since they describe a different kind of creature. As it is, Warcraft's kobolds have a different tag (kobold_(warcraft)), so it would make sense for the more goblin-esque mythological-based variations to have its own tag too.

wetwhenslippery said:
While the existence of furred_kobolds exist, it should be important to acknowledge that other species (such as furred_snake) are explicitly labeled as being apart of the scalie group.

I feel like this is an oversight more than anything - the dragon -> scalie implication has been rejected multiple times going back many years.

• topic #1189
• topic #7317
• topic #19470

The furred_snake -> snake implication was created without any consensus by, you guessed it, ImpidiDinkaDoo. implication #24453

Maybe it would have been accepted anyway, considering that a furred snake is a snake, but right now the only "explicitly labeled as being part of the scalie group" is an implication created by a former admin known for creating dozens of aliases/implications without any consensus or consultation from anybody else that have since had to be revoked.

faucet said:
I feel like this is an oversight more than anything - the dragon -> scalie implication has been rejected multiple times going back many years.

A western_dragon -> scalie implication exists though, and there's plenty of instances of "western_dragon furred_dragon" and some "western_dragon feathered_dragon". The dragon -> scalie implication being rejected would be because there can be non-reptilian dragons, like certain types of aquatic_dragons appearing more marine-like instead of reptilian/scalie, dragon_humanoids, or elemental_dragons.

Honestly I should of thought more about the implication before posting. I had just noticed several posts exists of kobolds (the dnd kind) that are missing the scalie tag. I feel like this is a con of the whole Twys system as a lot of people forget/don’t know about certain tags.

I guess this is just something that needs to be discussed in depth with the admins.

The tag implication kobold -> scalie (forum #379167) has been rejected by @slyroon.