The tag implication #43254 skaven -> rat is pending approval.

Reason: There is already skaven -> rodent, but I think it should imply rat because they are rats

kilorat said:
The tag implication #43254 skaven -> rat is pending approval.

Reason: There is already skaven -> rodent, but I think it should imply rat because they are rats

That makes sense, though you’ll also want to remove the skaven -> rodent implication as well.

scaliespe said:
That makes sense, though you’ll also want to remove the skaven -> rodent implication as well.

That is sensible to me

-1. Either Skaven are only rodents, or they're absolutely rats. In the former case, this implication doesn't make sense, and in the latter, it should be an alias, not an implication.

The bulk update request #1872 is pending approval.

remove implication skaven (2096) -> rodent (145904)

Reason: If the above implication is to work, this unimplication will be needed as rat already implies rodent. Of course, if the above implication is rejected, then so can this as well. No harm, no foul.

kilorat said:
The tag implication #43254 skaven -> rat is pending approval.

Reason: There is already skaven -> rodent, but I think it should imply rat because they are rats

furrin_gok said:
-1. Either Skaven are only rodents, or they're absolutely rats. In the former case, this implication doesn't make sense, and in the latter, it should be an alias, not an implication.

Yes. Per pokémon rules, fictional species should imply genus or above, but not species. If skaven are close enough to anthro rats that you can't tell them apart, then they should be aliased to rat. If there is enough distinction that people looking for rat would not want to see skaven, then the rodent implication is sufficient.

Right. If you guys are gonna avoid implicating pokemon to species this makes no sense. What if someone draws skaven as cats with everything else about them being recognizably skaven? That was the kind of argument you had to say braixen should not implicate fennec. I have no personal investment here just an argument worth considering.

fenrick said:
Right. If you guys are gonna avoid implicating pokemon to species this makes no sense.

The reason for not implicating pokemon to species is because pokemon are treated as quasi-character names instead of just a species (which I think is a bad way to handle it, but that's a discussion for elsewhere). In this case, skaven isn't a quasi-character name, so there's no issue implicating it to the closest taxonomic group that applies, and considering rodents encompass rats and mice, while skaven are clearly more rat-like than mouse-like, rodent is a less precise taxonomic group to apply. It'd be like implicating pegasus to mammal instead of equine; technically accurate, but not as precise.

post #3098905 post #2806834
These two look more like mice than rats.
post #2912371
This one looks like a cat with a rodent's tail.

furrin_gok said:
post #2912371
This one looks like a cat with a rodent's tail.

That really looks like a rat to me tbh

furrin_gok said:
post #3098905 post #2806834
These two look more like mice than rats.
post #2912371
This one looks like a cat with a rodent's tail.

looks like rats to me as well

matrixmash said:
Yes. Per pokémon rules, fictional species should imply genus or above, but not species. If skaven are close enough to anthro rats that you can't tell them apart, then they should be aliased to rat. If there is enough distinction that people looking for rat would not want to see skaven, then the rodent implication is sufficient.

I don’t think Pokémon rules really apply outside Pokémon (and maybe Digimon) since those are highly fictionalized most of the time, and they also sometimes overlap with the character tag category (Renamon being the most common example of that - Renamon drawn as a cat would still have to get the Renamon tag, confusingly, even though it’s a species). But regardless, I don’t think any Pokémon currently imply a genus, do they? Pikachu is supposed to be a rodent, or even a mouse more specifically, but it really doesn’t look like one. The best genuine implication I could see for it would be mammal, IMO. Regardless, it doesn’t even imply that, currently.

Skaven, as far as I can tell, are really just an anthropomorphic rat species, so I think rat is an appropriate tag in all cases. Aliasing it is not really appropriate - this is not done with other fictional species that are essentially the same as a real species. Earth pony continues to exist, and it even implies pony. Following your suggestion, we’d have to get rid of that implication and just alias earth_pony to pony.

The advantage of keeping tags like earth_pony and skaven, however, is that they also imply the appropriate copyright tag. Also, while they may not be differentiable from a taxonomic perspective, they still can be differentiated in other ways. These species are drawn in a specific way or depicted in a certain way that is unique to the species. Like, earth ponies are typically drawn without hands, or with hoof_hands. You can generally recognize them when you see them. Skaven, too, appear to be the same thing. They have a certain look to them, and usually a particular style of clothing that identifies them. But regardless, it’s never been the tradition here to alias fictional species to a real-world counterpart regardless of how similar.

I recently thought about this thread again and I'm shocked to see that having Skaven imply rat is still pending approval. They are not other types of rodents, they are ratmen in all cases. If a Skaven is naked, they can't be distinguished from other anthro rats, because they are rats.

kilorat said:
I recently thought about this thread again and I'm shocked to see that having Skaven imply rat is still pending approval. They are not other types of rodents, they are ratmen in all cases. If a Skaven is naked, they can't be distinguished from other anthro rats, because they are rats.

skaven should be at the lowest of implying murid/murine or kept as rodent. other fantasy species like minotaurs don't imply cattle but bovine despite explicitly having a bull head on human body, essentially just cowmen. more examples like argonian (and even lizardman) which just has distinctive heads of lizard species on human body only imply scalie instead of lizard or even considerable as reptile as confidently stated as reptilian species once.

besides that, whether they are stated as ratmen or not doesn't usually objectify that they are legitimately rats and usually a superficially describe them as rodent humanoids like lizardmen as reptile humanoids. with being just 'anthropomorphic rats', the portrayal of skaven typically ranging from desensetized generic anthro rats shown by e6 posts to a indescribable cross of rats and canid/werewolf. that's my two cents.