Reptiles are considered scalies, in such a way that an implication was made long ago. However fishes and amphibians aren't implicated, despite of apparently being considered as such too (~fish ~amphibian scalie -reptile -dragon -dinossaur > 530 results).
Then I ask: should those groups be implicated to 'scalie' as well?

Fish have scales, reptiles have scaly skin. Similar, but not quite the same.

Strikerman said:
Fish have scales, reptiles have scaly skin. Similar, but not quite the same.

I said nothing about scales.
In this context, 'scalie' isn't a literal term, similarly to how 'furry' isn't.

no. scalie is meant for scaly reptile-like things

Scalie is the generic furry term for cold-blooded species, which does include amphibians. But including fish would be problematic, even though sharks in particular are often considered 'scalies': they already have their own marine grouping here.

I prefer smoothie for amphibians. Since they don't have any scales. What's wrong with them just being amphibians without carrying around another huge meta group anyways?

KiraNoot said:
I prefer smoothie for amphibians. Since they don't have any scales. What's wrong with them just being amphibians without carrying around another huge meta group anyways?

If things with fur are furries and things with scales are scalies, wouldn't things with skin be skinnies?

BlueDingo said:
If things with fur are furries and things with scales are scalies, wouldn't things with skin be skinnies?

Things with fur also have skin, just with fur on it instead of hair. Would be very messy otherwise.

KiraNoot said:
I prefer smoothie for amphibians. Since they don't have any scales. What's wrong with them just being amphibians without carrying around another huge meta group anyways?

As I said, 'scalie' isn't a literal term; neither all scalies are scaly (e.g. dinosaurs) nor all scaly creatures are scalies (e.g. pangolins), this subject even was discussed on forum #224963. Also 'smoothie' sounds like the sort of thing that would be also used to any invertebrate (excluding the majority of adult arthropods also some echinoderms).

edit (underlined excerpt)

Genjar said:
[...] even though sharks in particular are often considered 'scalies': they already have their own marine grouping here.

However, we need to admit that 'marine' doesn't exactly relies on the appearance as 'scalie' does.

O16 said:
Also 'smoothie' sounds like the sort of thing that would be also used to any invertebrate (excluding the majority of adult arthropods).

It sounds like a slang term for "smoothskin", a term in Fallout used by ghouls to describe non-ghouls.

KiraNoot said:
I prefer smoothie for amphibians. Since they don't have any scales. What's wrong with them just being amphibians without carrying around another huge meta group anyways?

Personally I have nothing against re-defining it, but I'm sure that scalie would keep getting tagged for amphibians for a long time. And slapping users for tagging them that way seems harsh, when it's how the term is used elsewhere.

O16 said:
Also 'smoothie' sounds like the sort of thing that would be also used to any invertebrate (excluding the majority of adult arthropods).

Then there's this.

KiraNoot said:
I prefer smoothie for amphibians. Since they don't have any scales. What's wrong with them just being amphibians without carrying around another huge meta group anyways?

post #906644

O16 said:
As I said, 'scalie' isn't a literal term; neither all scalies are scaly (e.g. dinosaurs) nor all scaly creatures are scalies (e.g. pangolins), this subject even was discussed on forum #224963.

However those are not quite the intentions written in the most recent wiki(nor any previous version of the wiki in the past 10 years).
"Scalie is a generic term invented by the furry fandom for designed all species with scaly skin and reptiles species."
eg. Any species that is scaled + any reptile based species + any amphibian based species(if you include the wikifur description of scalie)

This was the entry existing from the creation of this tag until 2010.
"Characters that are technically furries, but do not actually have any fur."
eg. any character that isnt furred, in practice used for any character that is scaled, there never were any conditions regarding actual species.

From 2010 to 2015 the wiki was changed in such away that it could technically be aliased to reptile as the description then excluded everything that wasnt a reptile species including dragons.

The fact that furred and feathered dragons are noted to be excluded from being called scalie in the most recent entry from 2015 underlines that the tag is still more about characters with scales and not as much species based

Ruku said:
However those are not quite the intentions written in the most recent wiki(nor any previous version of the wiki in the past 10 years).
"Scalie is a generic term invented by the furry fandom for designed all species with scaly skin and reptiles species."
eg. Any species that is scaled + any reptile based species + any amphibian based species(if you include the wikifur description of scalie)

This was the entry existing from the creation of this tag until 2010.
"Characters that are technically furries, but do not actually have any fur."
eg. any character that isnt furred, in practice used for any character that is scaled, there never were any conditions regarding actual species.

From 2010 to 2015 the wiki was changed in such away that it could technically be aliased to reptile as the description then excluded everything that wasnt a reptile species including dragons.

This is somewhat unfortunate. Those multiple changes alied with such inconsistencies make the wiki a bit less reliable.
Would be great if we could contact the users who made the most important changes in order to understand their reasons.

Ruku said:
The fact that furred and feathered dragons are noted to be excluded from being called scalie in the most recent entry from 2015 underlines that the tag is still more about characters with scales and not as much species based

Many scalie dragons actually have nude skin instead of scales.
Also, dragons commonly have some characteristics more closely related to mammals than to reptiles or amphibians (e.g. ears, certain types of horn, paws, bat-like wings etc.), in such way that a new body covering may be sufficient to make their general appearance no longer "reptilian" enough to fit as scalie.

e.g. post #1218746

-1 because of the whole can of worms this opens up.

For instance:

Pangolins?

O16 said:
Many scalie dragons actually have nude skin instead of scales.

That could be more a case of artists choosing not to put in the extra detail. The same thing happens to many furry and feathery creatures, and toony images in general tend to do this.

FoxFourOhFour said:
-1 because of the whole can of worms this opens up.

Eh... Can you explain what exactly do you mean by that?

FoxFourOhFour said:

Pangolins?

Yes, pangolins; they are scaly but not scalies.

BlueDingo said:
That could be more a case of artists choosing not to put in the extra detail. The same thing happens to many furry and feathery creatures, and toony images in general tend to do this.

That too, but there are many quite detailed posts that feature them with nude skin as well.

e.g. post #1016679

O16 said:
Yes, pangolins; they are scaly but not scalies.

By whose definition thou, your own opinion? Dont go around misleading people.

That too, but there are many quite detailed posts that feature them with nude skin as well.

e.g. post #1016679

Of cource there are dragons with hide instead of scales too, i was never excluding them. Remember the wiki did say all species with scaled skin and reptile species . Thru i do have a hard time believing this is even a dragon at all.
post #1218746

[/quote]

Ruku said:
By whose definition thou, your own opinion? Dont go around misleading people.

Do you even clicked on the link that I showed back when firstly mentioned pangolins? It is for a thread specifically focused on this subject, and its ultimate decisions was scaly ≠ scalie. Here it is again: forum #224963.

Ruku said:
Remember the wiki did say all species with scaled skin and reptile species.

Dragons aren't reptiles (at least not always); as I said and exemplified, they tend to combine reptilian and mammalian characteristics.
Since a dragon may be neither scaly, nor a reptile and even though be considered a scalie, then the wiki needs adjustment.

Ruku said:
By whose definition thou, your own opinion? Dont go around misleading people.

Of cource there are dragons with hide instead of scales too, i was never excluding them. Remember the wiki did say all species with scaled skin and reptile species . Thru i do have a hard time believing this is even a dragon at all.
post #1218746

Did you ever look at the wiki for dragon? It does not imply Scalie. Only Western Dragon does.

O16 said:
Eh... Can you explain what exactly do you mean by that?

Yes, pangolins; they are scaly but not scalies.

That too, but there are many quite detailed posts that feature them with nude skin as well.

e.g. post #1016679

Huh, somebody falsely tagged that as lizard, when it's an amphibian. Fixed.

Furrin_Gok said:
Huh, somebody falsely tagged that as lizard, when it's an amphibian. Fixed.

Doesn't look like an amphibian to me. Looks more like it is made out of latex or rubber. I don't see any amphibian traits on it either, other than it lacks defined scales.

Doesn't look like an amphibian to me either. As far as I know, no amphibian species have actual horns, and the head shape is closer to reptile.

Gonna switch that back to lizard, it's a better match.

Genjar said:
Doesn't look like an amphibian to me either. As far as I know, no amphibian species have actual horns, and the head shape is closer to reptile.

Gonna switch that back to lizard, it's a better match.

The number of fingers would be one of the easiest traits to look for. Salamanders, frogs and toads (generally, exceptions exist) only have four fingers on the front legs, and five(sometimes fewer, sometimes more) on the back.

KiraNoot said:
The number of fingers would be one of the easiest traits to look for. Salamanders, frogs and toads (generally, exceptions exist) only have four fingers on the front legs, and five(sometimes fewer, sometimes more) on the back.

Not a very accurate way to go since any species in anthro form can potentially have 5 fingers, even species that don't normally have any.

KiraNoot said:
Doesn't look like an amphibian to me. Looks more like it is made out of latex or rubber. I don't see any amphibian traits on it either, other than it lacks defined scales.

Welcome to the internet, were fictional additions to creatures are commonplace. The major features of the image are the webbed spine, webbed hands, and the rubbery skin. Five fingers? Simple "humanoid" design. Horns? You can throw horns onto anything. Strongest argument there is the head shape.

It's a matter of which species has more traits: The other stuff at that point is thrown on. I feel like there's more definitive traits pointing at amphibian.

You're also overlooking the claws, which are a reptilian feature.

If it helps, the person who commissioned the image tagged it with "dragon" and "latex".

O16 said:
Do you even clicked on the link that I showed back when firstly mentioned pangolins? It is for a thread specifically focused on this subject, and its ultimate decisions was scaly ≠ scalie. Here it is again: forum #224963.

yes i did long before i posted here, in fact i did comment on that thread a long time ago. From what i can tell it never came to a resolution and is still unresolved as far as decision goes. The ultimate dicision you note is still a just as unofficial and without approval opinion as are the other opinions noted in that thread.

Dragons aren't reptiles (at least not always); as I said and exemplified, they tend to combine reptilian and mammalian characteristics.
Since a dragon may be neither scaly, nor a reptile and even though be considered a scalie, then the wiki needs adjustment.

i did make a mistake thru none the less in laymans terms they are often regarded as reptiles. The wiki could use some changes but im not about to accept your interpretation that doesn't represent the majority who have dealed with the tag and wiki now and in the past.

Furrin_Gok said:
Welcome to the internet, were fictional additions to creatures are commonplace. The major features of the image are the webbed spine, webbed hands, and the rubbery skin. Five fingers? Simple "humanoid" design. Horns? You can throw horns onto anything. Strongest argument there is the head shape.

It's a matter of which species has more traits: The other stuff at that point is thrown on. I feel like there's more definitive traits pointing at amphibian.

Nether a webbed spine or rubbery skin are signature traits of amphibians, the former is a anatomical feature seen in some early land dwelling dinosaur species while in the latter amphibian actually tend to have slimy slightly dimpled skin.
As far as sure signs go a broad and short head and complete lack of true distinct claws or nails are sure signs of amphibians in terms of e621 tagging, thru they arnt always reliable because of some artists using reptiles as bases of reference or applying claws for eastetic reasons much in the same way anthropomorphic sharks are given claws.
As for the example depicting the wingless aquatic dragon Centrifuge, he can be amphibian in some images but not in others because some artists follow the traits of amphibians while others choose to reference reptile anatomy, that does include the example here that has true claws...

Furrin_Gok said:
Did you ever look at the wiki for dragon? It does not imply Scalie. Only Western Dragon does.

Im unclear as to what your talking about as i never said dragon implies or should imply to scalie.

Ruku said:
yes i did long before i posted here, in fact i did comment on that thread a long time ago. From what i can tell it never came to a resolution and is still unresolved as far as decision goes. The ultimate dicision you note is still a just as unofficial and without approval opinion as are the other opinions noted in that thread.

Actually it seems well established to me.

I) Many of the decisions on forum threads are technically unofficial since in the majority of the threads no admin showed up to fully confirm them.

II) although there are users supporting both sides, the scaly ≠ scalie portion clearly has the most supporters.

III) the aforementioned positioning have the great argument that 'scalie' is a term for amphibian and reptile based creatures and not for the ones with a specific type of body covering, argument that is supported by external sources.

IV) Apparently, the posts featuring only pangolins that were tagged as 'scalie' were mistaggs caused by the fact of 'scaly' being aliased to 'scalie', while it probably should be aliased to 'scales'.

Ruku said:
i did make a mistake thru none the less in laymans terms they are often regarded as reptiles. The wiki could use some changes but im not about to accept your interpretation that doesn't represent the majority who have dealed with the tag and wiki now and in the past.

The fact of "one's interpretation" be different from the past ones doesn't means it is wrong. One among many reasons for forum's existence is for discussing and fixing past mistakes.