Not a pokemon expert, so just a passing note: both creatures are clearly based on newts (salamanders), but images are tagged reptile and scalie.

Newts are amphibians, not reptiles, and have no scales on their skin.

How about implying both to amphibian instead?

-1

pokemon do not belong in any real animal hierarchy classification system.They are nether reptile or amphibian and any such tag should be removed from posts if the they were added for identifying pokemon.Scalie on the other hand can be used if the pokemon's body is scaled and has a build that resembles species you mentioned.

Edit*
Count me wrong i guess, they are in fact properly added forum #217234

thru a implication is still not sound as the resemblance may not always be clear enough and must be taged case by case.
Added that a implication would be especially problematic if they are humanized.

sometimes they appear more amphibian than reptile or scalie and sometimes they appear more reptile ir scalie than amphibians

Ruku said:
resemblance may not always be clear enough and must be taged case by case.

Case-by-case, at this moment, salazzles are tagged reptile 4:1 amphibian.
Likely because users are not aware it may be something other than a lizard.
Also, how do you tell an anthro lizard from an anthro newt?

post #1084557 post #1086653

I don't like excessive implication myself but is there any other way to give a hint?
Like, "consider newt/amphibian over lizard/reptile when tagging".

hslugs said:
Also, how do you tell an anthro lizard from an anthro newt?
post #1084557

Take that image there, and you'll notice some smooth shading going on, but no particular shine to her. That's a reptile.
post #1085733 post #1084786
These Salazzle have got some very much obvious shine to them. They're amphibian.
post #1079841
And this one's not got shading to it, so we can't really tell one way or the other.

Furrin_Gok said:
Take that image there, and you'll notice some smooth shading going on, but no particular shine to her. That's a reptile.

These Salazzle have got some very much obvious shine to them. They're amphibian.

Are you saying reptiles can't be shiny?
[/quote]

You make absolutely no sence furin gok, both reptiles and amphibians can be shiny or mat, including newts.

As far as mature amphibians go, they tend to have a wide short rounded muzzle and have no claws while reptiles tend to have a more angular long muzzle and claws but that is not always the case with all species. The only sure way to visualy tell the difference is if they have scales or not, obviously thou most artists don't tend to detail scales.

BlueDingo said:
Are you saying reptiles can't be shiny?

[/quote]
Here's more examples. So yes, that doesn't quite work. Lizards are often shiny.

In addition to what's been said above, implicating a pokemon to a biological class or family has it's problems in cases like alternate_species,
post #735351 post #371866

or with pokemon themed clothing and outfits
post #823318 post #709662.

Excepting Ninetails in the second one, all of the above pictures do not depict the expected class/family that the original, feral pokemon would have (e.g. a feral Sylveon is considered a canine, but there's no canine traits in the first picture).

rezi said:
In addition to what's been said above, implicating a pokemon to a biological class or family has it's problems in cases like alternate_species,

alternate_species, hybrid and fusion are an issue with every species, real and fictional.

Technically, that "sylveon" is a hybrid, not an alternate_species, since sylveon is itself a species and as soon as you change its species to something else, it is no longer a sylveon.

While I have no official say in the matter(this is NOT me making a call as a staff member), I'd like to vote towards them not being put under the typical biological classes and have them only under salazzle/salandit. The name seems to imply salamander, the description explicitly calls it a lizard, and generally, nobody knows what it is because of this ambiguity. It's just less confusing trying not to force a canon classification onto pokemon.

KiraNoot said:
While I have no official say in the matter(this is NOT me making a call as a staff member), I'd like to vote towards them not being put under the typical biological classes and have them only under salazzle/salandit. The name seems to imply salamander, the description explicitly calls it a lizard, and generally, nobody knows what it is because of this ambiguity. It's just less confusing trying not to force a canon classification onto pokemon.

Sounds like you don't want them mixing with your kind.

Racist joke aside, I agree. A broad term like avian can work (not for salazzle, obviously) since it goes beyond animals but bird should be restricted to birds.

BlueDingo said:
Sounds like you don't want them mixing with your kind.

Racist joke aside, I agree. A broad term like avian can work (not for salazzle, obviously) since it goes beyond animals but bird should be restricted to birds.

The situation of classification just seems totally broken here because nobody can agree on what it is. In the case of something like Arcanine, where there is a clear name hint, and the description hints at it being a canine, you can stick it under canine and it makes sense, everyone is on the same page. For Salazzle, there are some under newt, some under salamander, some under just amphibian(but not under newt or salamander), some under reptile(but not lizard), scalie, lizard. It's just all over the place, and it's just means that you have to exclude it from a huge number of searches if you're looking for the biological versions of those and not salazzle. Regardless of what is picked, it's going to be a constant battle to keep it there, based on the existing spectrum that has shown up already. My opinion is that the cleanest way to handle that is to put it under pokemon, and salazzle and keep it out of everything else. There is no ambiguity or argument that it is those two things.

KiraNoot said:
The situation of classification just seems totally broken here because nobody can agree on what it is. In the case of something like Arcanine, where there is a clear name hint, and the description hints at it being a canine, you can stick it under canine and it makes sense, everyone is on the same page. For Salazzle, there are some under newt, some under salamander, some under just amphibian(but not under newt or salamander), some under reptile(but not lizard), scalie, lizard. It's just all over the place, and it's just means that you have to exclude it from a huge number of searches if you're looking for the biological versions of those and not salazzle. Regardless of what is picked, it's going to be a constant battle to keep it there, based on the existing spectrum that has shown up already.

The easy ones (eg. magikarp -> marine) are worth looking into while the difficult ones like salazzle should be left alone due to ambiguity.

You guys. Ok, trying to clarify this a bit.
There are three ways to tag them currently in use:

1. pokemon, reptile, scalie (60%)
2. pokemon, amphibian (15%)
3. pokemon only (25%)

Percentages are not exact, but that's not important.

The majority are tagged #1, which I think is wrong and should be avoided. Also, all three see significant usage, imo not because of twys but just because people are not sure how to tag this particular species. That's the problem.

How to fix this. I'm personally ok with #2, so I suggested implication. Which would be an immediate cue to the tagger. "Why there's amphibian in the tags when I tagged it reptile". Hopefully followed by a wiki check, and removal of reptile tag.

#3 is a nice neutral choice but it must be followed by something. Like nuking all reptile, scalie, amphibian tags from all posts already tagged, updating the wiki, and watching new submissions because people will tag them reptile anyway.

Yet another option is to chill out and be ok with the fact they are tagged reptile/amphibian indiscriminately. But let's face it, we're on e6 so this is not a real option.

hslugs said:
You guys. Ok, trying to clarify this a bit.
There are three ways to tag them currently in use:

1. pokemon, reptile, scalie (60%)
2. pokemon, amphibian (15%)
3. pokemon only (25%)

Percentages are not exact, but that's not important.

The majority are tagged #1, which I think is wrong and should be avoided. Also, all three see significant usage, imo not because of twys but just because people are not sure how to tag this particular species. That's the problem.

How to fix this. I'm personally ok with #2, so I suggested implication. Which would be an immediate cue to the tagger. "Why there's amphibian in the tags when I tagged it reptile". Hopefully followed by a wiki check, and removal of reptile tag.

#3 is a nice neutral choice but it must be followed by something. Like nuking all reptile, scalie, amphibian tags from all posts already tagged, updating the wiki, and watching new submissions because people will tag them reptile anyway.

Yet another option is to chill out and be ok with the fact they are tagged reptile/amphibian indiscriminately. But let's face it, we're on e6 so this is not a real option.

Just saying its not because people dont know what to properly tag pokemon with, people are taging pokemon by the animal family they most visually resemble in a particular post s they should. what would be improper is basing your choice on pokemon lore.

i.imgur.com/BBvitS6.png
It says right on the Pokemon wiki quoted from the Pokédex that its a FRickin Liard and lizards r reptiles
+1

memeboy said:
i.imgur.com/BBvitS6.png
It says right on the Pokemon wiki quoted from the Pokédex that its a FRickin Liard and lizards r reptiles
+1

That would be TWYK, though. This is a debacle of what it *looks* like, not what it is known to be.

Siral_Exan said:
That would be TWYK, though. This is a debacle of what it *looks* like, not what it is known to be.

majority of people are tagging it a lizard because it looks like a lizard, and the pokemon wikipedia says its a lizard? and it looks like a sexy version of a lizard, So its probably a Lizard

Yep. I'd go with lizard in most cases.
If it weren't for outside information (and the species name), most users probably wouldn't even think of tagging them as salamanders.

Genjar said:
Yep. I'd go with lizard in most cases.
If it weren't for outside information (and the species name), most users probably wouldn't even think of tagging it as a salamander.

Does lizard belong with the same group as fox, though? That's my first thought. Reptile and scalie should be sufficient. Also, while salazzle may be based on a newt/salamander, it vaguely looks like one but also has reptilian features. Frogs and toads are the most obvious types of amphibians.

UnusualParadox said:
Does lizard belong with the same group as fox, though?

is a much broader tier than fox. Maybe this'll help visualize it:

UnusualParadox said:
Does lizard belong with the same group as fox, though? That's my first thought. Reptile and scalie should be sufficient. Also, while salazzle may be based on a newt/salamander, it vaguely looks like one but also has reptilian features.

That's the problem with judging things based solely on what they look like, some things look like other things. Tanukis are canines that look like raccoons. Flying squirrels and sugar gliders look very similar yet one's a rodent and the other's a marsupial.

Frogs and toads are the most obvious types of amphibians.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with ~6000/~6700 amphibian species being frogs and toads. Just because the other ~700 aren't frogs, that doesn't mean they don't count.

Salazzle's English name is a clear pun on salamander. Its Japanese name (ennyūto) is an even more obvious pun on newt, which is a salamander. It clearly looks like a salamander.

Salamanders are amphibians.

However, colloquially speaking, most people consider all hairless alligator-y things to be lizards. This is why Salazzle is the Toxic Lizard Pokemon.

Similarly, people consider all crawling or flying tiny monsters to be bugs. This is why the Bug type exists by that name and why Weedle, a bee larva, is the Hairy Bug Pokemon. (Bees are not bugs.)

Tags like "reptile" really shouldn't have any place, because they don't do anything to help an ordinary, sane person search. "I don't want any fantasy creature based nominally on an animal that isn't EXACTLY within the PRECISE clade I want!!" etc. etc.

Genjar said:
Lizard is a much broader tier than fox. Maybe this'll help visualize it:

Class	Order	Suborder	Family	Genus	Species
Reptile	Squamata	Lizard	Skink	Blue-tongued skink	Shingleback
Mammal	Carnivora	Caniformia	Canine	Fox	Arctic fox
Avian	Galliformes	Phasiani	Phasianidae	Peafowl	Indian peafowl

That does help, thanks! So I assume bird is comparable to lizard then in that regard? Since birds can be divided into other more specific terms like crow, owl, hawk, vulture, etc.? Meaning images like post 1071277 can keep the species tags like avian and bird, but not owl? And yes, before anyone argues it, Rowlet is clearly based on an owl.

BlueDingo said:
I'm sure that has nothing to do with ~6000/~6700 amphibian species being frogs and toads. Just because the other ~700 aren't frogs, that doesn't mean they don't count.

Not saying they don't. All I know is when asked to name one sort of amphibian the top four answers will always be: frog, toad, newt, and salamander (more-or-less in that order).

BlueDingo said:
That's the problem with judging things based solely on what they look like, some things look like other things. Tanukis are canines that look like raccoons. Flying squirrels and sugar gliders look very similar yet one's a rodent and the other's a marsupial.

And so we come to the same argument with no real answer, just compromises. What looks like one broad category to one person looks like a completely different one to another (like "anthro" vs "semi-anthro").

FibS said:
Salazzle's English name is a clear pun on salamander. Its Japanese name (ennyūto) is an even more obvious pun on newt, which is a salamander. It clearly looks like a salamander.

So is Charmander. It's entire inspiration and typing comes from the myth of salamanders being born from fire. However, if I remember correctly "Charmander's" Japanese name literally means "lizard". Charmeleon is another one, sharing the stem portion of chameleon. Names can't be relied on, though, for species names as evidenced in forum 218322. Not arguing, just pointing out why using name comparisons are unreliable for tagging other information.

FibS said:
Similarly, people consider all crawling or flying tiny monsters to be bugs. This is why the Bug type exists by that name and why Weedle, a bee larva, is the Hairy Bug Pokemon. (Bees are not bugs.)

Good thing we use the tags insect and arthropod then.

FibS said:
Tags like "reptile" really shouldn't have any place, because they don't do anything to help an ordinary, sane person search. "I don't want any fantasy creature based nominally on an animal that isn't EXACTLY within the PRECISE clade I want!!" etc. etc.

It does have some use and makes the species section look more complete. Perhaps browsers like all reptiles except for "chameleons" for example. Search reptile+-chameleon reveals all reptiles except for chameleons. Likewise, for blacklisting it works in reverse. Maybe another browser likes only alligators, so they blacklist reptile+-alligator so results filter out all reptile posts except for those with alligators in it. Every tag has a purpose, even if it's not commonly used.

UnusualParadox said:
So is Charmander. It's entire inspiration and typing comes from the myth of salamanders being born from fire. However, if I remember correctly "Charmander's" Japanese name literally means "lizard". Charmeleon is another one, sharing the stem portion of chameleon. Names can't be relied on, though, for species names as evidenced in forum 218322. Not arguing, just pointing out why using name comparisons are unreliable for tagging other information.

Charmander's Japanese name is hitokage - "fire lizard" - which is the Japanese term for a salamander in general. They also have a specific salamander named ōsanshōuo which is something like "giant pepper fish". In English we have prairie dogs which aren't dogs, sea lions which aren't lions, etc. etc.

While it is obvious that Charizard's line's name is whimsical, because it references three different animals, Salazzle's reference is far more consistent. Its pre-evolution, Salandit, is also a pun of salamander, this time with bandit. (Its Japanese name, yatōmori, is just "burglar newt".)

And of course, Salandit and Salazzle very closely resemble cartoony salamanders, particularly their 'fingers' and long swirly tails.

Naturally, if you specifically change the species of the character, then whatever race they normally are in the first place means nothing, whether it is in the name or not. I was never suggesting for the Salazzle tag to implicate any species.

Good thing we use the tags insect and arthropod then.

I don't think you're quite getting the point here.

A person earlier stated that Salazzle was a lizard because its Pokedex moniker names it as the Toxic Lizard, so I was illustrating why it was that this wasn't sound, and the public generalization of salamanders, frogs, et al as "lizards".

As a parallel, I pointed out that basically any insect and some crawlies that aren't insects are often lumped together as "bugs", and that this was also reflected in Pokemon thru its Bug type and Weedle's moniker.

FibS said:
Naturally, if you specifically change the species of the character, then whatever race they normally are in the first place means nothing, whether it is in the name or not. I was never suggesting for the Salazzle tag to implicate any species.

So we're in agreement that Salazzle and its prior evolution, Salandit, is too ambiguous to definitively place in either category? Game Freak and its localization teams like to make puns and references, but that's all they are, puns and references.

Genjar said:
Lizard is a much broader tier than fox. Maybe this'll help visualize it:

Class	Order	Suborder	Family	Genus	Species
Reptile	Squamata	Lizard	Skink	Blue-tongued skink	Shingleback
Mammal	Carnivora	Caniformia	Canine	Fox	Arctic fox
Avian	Galliformes	Phasiani	Phasianidae	Peafowl	Indian peafowl

It's... not entirely...

Okay so basically, it's a mistake to think that the taxonomic ranks are of equal "broadness". That is to say, despite both being families, Canidae and Glaucidae are not necessarily comparable. Same with any two orders, any two suborders, any two of any taxonomic rank.

Beyond that it's a bit weird that we've gotten this far without anyone pointing out that as a general rule we don't imply Pokemon species to real species. We don't do it for any Pokemon - even for the pretty clear ones like Herdier.

Clawdragons said:
It's... not entirely...

I was trying to keep it simple. :/
But basically, we don't tag Pokemon (or Digimon etc) as real life genus or species.

The main reason for that was because many users (and some admins) were unhappy about getting nothing but clearly fictional creatures when they're attempting to search for, let's say, regular foxes. And you can't just tack on -digimon -pokemon -monster_rancher etc into every search.

UnusualParadox said:
That does help, thanks! So I assume bird is comparable to lizard then in that regard? Since birds can be divided into other more specific terms like crow, owl, hawk, vulture, etc.?

Not sure what to do about those, because birds in general have very few tags. Most are directly implicated to bird, but it'd be useful to have (for instance) an umbrella tag for birds of prey (eagles, hawks, etc). That's a whole different topic, though.

Pokemon such as honchkrow shouldn't be tagged as crow, but it's debatable whether corvid applies.

Genjar said:
it'd be useful to have (for instance) an umbrella tag for birds of prey (eagles, hawks, etc).

Raptor. It means "bird of prey".

Oh wait, that's being used for velociraptors.

There seems to be a basic consistency problem with tagging broad species on pokemon posts, maybe with lots of them:

growlithe feral canine
growlithe feral -canine

absol solo canine
absol solo feline

The implication should be denied at the least.

Lance_Armstrong said:
There seems to be a basic consistency problem with tagging broad species on pokemon posts, maybe with lots of them:

growlithe feral canine
growlithe feral -canine

absol solo canine
absol solo feline

The implication should be denied at the least.

It's a work in progress. Years of poképosts with wrong, inconsistent, or misinformed tags doesn't make it any easier. At least most pokémon can be tagged by the broadest terms possible like mammal, humanoid, and marine. The problem is going to be with more "recognizable" species like fox and dragon for certain pokémon and other digimon. Delphox, braixen, fennekin, zoroark, zorua, renamon, and so on may cause some initial tagging wars when removing fox from their applied tags. Hence, somewhere there should be an easy means of locating definitive rules on what pokémon, digimon, and other special fictional beasties can be tagged as and how specific the tagging should be. As far as I know, it can only go as far as family (i.e. canine, rodent, pinniped, etc.).

Genjar said:
Yep. I'd go with lizard in most cases.

Using lizard for any creature with somewhat lizard-y body plan is a sane idea in itself.
Nothing unusual, lots of natural languages do that. Guinea pig, sea cucumber, firefly. Fire lizard. Female in e6 parlance.

However, "lizard → reptile" implication would become invalid.
Because it's based on a different definition of the word "lizard".

So imo this is ok: "salazzle pokemon lizard".
But this is not: "salazzle pokemon lizard reptile", "salazzle pokemon reptile".