Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The tag implication #53590 vernid -> reptile has been rejected.
Reason: states they're reptiles in the official guide -> https://www.deviantart.com/lilaira/art/Vernid-Guide-1-8-917459243
EDIT: The tag implication vernid -> reptile (forum #387248) has been rejected by @slyroon.
Updated by auto moderator
Do taxonomy tags go by lore or twys? Because these guy have an overwhelmingly mammalian appearance.
oopsitripped said:
Do taxonomy tags go by lore or twys? Because these guy have an overwhelmingly mammalian appearance.
twys, pretty sure
I am pretty certain we don't do implications for personal species like this
donovan_dmc said:
I am pretty certain we don't do implications for personal species like this
i mean they're as personal as sergals are, just far less known
littlemilton said:
i mean they're as personal as sergals are, just far less known
Note sergal also has no implications to anything
donovan_dmc said:
Note sergal also has no implications to anything
OH
okay
that changes things
yeah sure then we can leave it be
damn I'm stupid, I'm so sorry
donovan_dmc said:
I am pretty certain we don't do implications for personal species like this
But we do create implications for fictional species like skaven or burmecian. Is it a you-must-be-this-popular requirement for species to be implied?
strikerman said:
But we do create implications for fictional species like skaven or burmecian. Is it a you-must-be-this-popular requirement for species to be implied?
There's a difference in a personal species someone came up with that got popular, and a species that's present in a game or franchise
Do you expect every single species to have implications? It's just the same that we don't allow hybrid species tags (until they're well established, apparently)
So in a way, yes, but that's misrepresenting it
donovan_dmc said:
Do you expect every single species to have implications? It's just the same that we don't allow hybrid species tags (until they're well established, apparently)
Personally, I'd say if it's a species worth having a tag for, it's worth having appropriate implications. If it's not worth having implications, it should be aliased to what it most closely can be tagged as.
It's worth pointing out that yinglet, basitin, and fluffy_pony_(species) have implications to mammal.
donovan_dmc said:
Do you expect every single species to have implications?
If they're legitimate tags, I don't see why not.
from my look-up to other fictional species such as argonian, it does not imply reptile but scalie, nor kobold or dragon imply anything despite their appearance are very reptilian-like.
depending on the logic of the species' universe such as sergals, they have mammalian fur but lack breastfeeding that mammals are very guarantee to possess and officially declared as such:
"their scientific classification may be said to be the middle between mammals and reptiles, however, they are hard to be strictly classified the same as Earth's creatures entirely."
in this context, should we make sergals imply mammal and reptile? i don't think so.
vernids are a cross between mammals and reptiles, though declared as mostly reptiles, but i don't know if this really does change the fact? in some instances, birds are (from a phylogenetic standpoint) reptiles which is debatable at this point.
Updated
strikerman said:
But we do create implications for fictional species like skaven or burmecian. Is it a you-must-be-this-popular requirement for species to be implied?
Honestly, fictional_species -> real_species implications are nothing but a mess. I don't think we can look at and rely on past decisions considering the inconsistency in the way they've been done over the years. Most that exist are ancient, but some are newer. Many have been deleted (e.g. rattata no longer implies rat like it used to) or re-targeted to something more broad, like mammal instead of felid.
The rules have historically been very inconsistently enforced, people have received records for tagging Pokémon as real world families like canid or felid (despite hundreds of other people doing so) while other tags like khajiit implying felid only seems to imply that it's acceptable.
Fictional species (very often Pokémon) have an awkward status where they can be tagged based on their design rather than actually being present in the image. I remember this was actually pretty controversial when the species tag was first launched, with many people instead arguing that Pokémon should be character tags instead.
Tagged as pikachu, but there's definitely not a rodent (or whatever pikachu is supposed to be) in sight.
What happens if somebody suddenly decides their previously mammal species also has a reptile-like subspecies? Or just gradually shifts the canonical design into something that looks completely different to what it did when the alias was created?
The tag implication vernid -> reptile (forum #387248) has been rejected by @slyroon.
