So a long time ago, I uploaded two pictures, being post #778349 and post #778454 . Everything was fine and dandy, until one of them (Funnily enough the one having a rating of -2, I wonder why) got plagued with the Human tag. Once I wtfed and removed it, the two pictures then got tagged with not_furry and humanoid, which to me sounds totally ridiculous. A cartoony character with a bubble head, unrealistic anime eyes and no neck isn't something I would call very human-like, so my first reaction was "This guy just hates female humans for a reason I guess" and that dude wants them out of his view bested by the power of blacklisting because she resembles a human due to the dress and maybe the navel. After maybe 2-3 days of going back and forth with the tags, I eventually MPed an admin about this whole case, and learned basically that "Everything that is not animal-like gets tagged as not_furry and those who have a human physiology get the humanoid tag" Alright, I find that absurd and over the top but I can buy this, but then, doesn't that mean that pretty much everything I uploaded to this day should be tagged as not_furry too ? I gave some examples of cases and since then I never got a reply.

I don't know if that's because I sounded that stupid when I pointed out that then pretty much everything I had uploaded should then be tagged as not-furry and gave examples, such as Audino/Chansey/Blissey, Jigglypuff/Clefairy, Kuromi/My_Melody/Charlotte_(puella_magi_madoka_magica) and the majority of the cast from Tamagotchi just to name a few examples. They're pretty much all based on, well, nothing at all, except Kuromi that can be based on demon or imps, but her look is far from that anyway, and even that demons/imps are not considered furry to begin with. I even looked at the wiki and the humanoid has a picture with Midna in, so that means Midna should actually be tagged not_furry and humanoid too ? (I did make a quick search and noticed that there's a bunch of pictures actually being tagged this way, so I do know now that's actually the case for her)

(Also funnily enough, I tagged my Slurpuff picture post #787975 as not_furry because duh it's a meringue, not an animal, and the tag got removed by someone, again putting me at loss in this whole situation)

So what is happening here ? They all get tagged as not_furry while some of them are tagged as Humanoid like Charlotte, but not Kuromi because she has a tail ? That's another info I got with the MP exchange, basically humanoids are not_furry characters that don't possess something a human can't have, like a tail or paws, I think. But then if paws are included with that list, shouldn't (Cure) Candy be excluded ? Because her hands and feet are basically undefined bulges, not hands or legs, which is hilarious because Midna actually has more in common with humans than her with realistic looking body, hands and face. Also for the matter, (Cure) Candy actually has a tail with her design. So should I not tag her as a humanoid or should I anyway because of the tag what you see "doctrine" ?

What about flora_fauna characters ? They're not animals, they're plants ! Shouldn't they get the not_furry tag too or are they some exception to the rule ? Should they get tagged as humanoid too and/or anthro ? Should that also apply to vaguely specified characters like Whimsicott too ? It's not a sheep, but the hair is based on a sheep, and cotton, so does that mean it should get the trio combo (not_furry humanoid flora_fauna) ?

Again, I have no idea if I look stupid by trying to reason here, but the simple fact that a-specified characters, even if they kind of look like unknown animals, mean they're simply not_furry at all, and this would then covers a bunch of characters I'd have thought the furry fandom would have considered as kemono, being a sub label from this fandom to some extend, like how reptiles "managed" to be in the furry fandom despite being far from being furry and fluffy and I am at a loss to figure out how it is supposed to work in its entirety

I'd expect to see a justification posted here soon enough, but the way I see it, even though the character is written as having fur, it's not represented at all in this picture, and there's no other animal-like traits visible. Being a non-human alone doesn't make it furry.

Most of the examples you give seem to be characters with those traits (ears, tail, paws, or fur). If a character was represented in a way that those traits weren't obviously visible, whether deliberate or not, it's not_furry because it wouldn't appeal to anyone looking for furry pictures. The tagging might be applied inconsistently, but that's not a reason to be upset when people are making an effort to do it. Pokemon is a weird case, but I think they're mostly considered fictional species animals I guess. Scalies and birds are considered "furry" as in they are animals, not in that they have fur.

My opinion on plants is that they are not_furry unless they're mixed with animal traits (such as flora_fauna should be, given the tag name). Your meringue seems to have paw-like feet, which could be justify it being considered furry.

Anyway, it's not a death sentence for a picture you uploaded to be tagged not_furry, be glad the 1% of over-sensitive people with it blacklisted won't be bothering you after that.

You raise quite a few valid posts, but according to the wiki, those two posts that you first mentioned fulfill the requirements necessary for the not_furry tag.

And I'm certain the admins don't want us going around and tagging every reptilian image we see with the not_furry tag because, outside of the herculean headache it would most likely cause, we as a fandom use the term "furry" to describe anthropomorphic animals.

But I am not upset at all, I don't care or mind about pictures I uploaded being tagged as not furry. It is just hard to wrap up my mind that chibi but animal features lacking characters are just completely out of the boat while I was certain they were included. I knew that obvious not furry characters like Kirby and Boos, but that's mainly due to them not being anthro at all to begin with, then being based on no animals either, while here she kind of looks like some chibi furry characters due to having some sort of fur, just that she isn't really based on any specific animal, well, she's kind of based of a human I guess, and humans are animals TAKE THAT E621 I WON

So if I understand that all well, it's simply that as long a character has absolutely no animal-like features like fur, paws, ears or tail, then it's not furry whatsoever (Pretty sure that (Cure) Candy is shown with some sort of fur-like skin). I'm not too sure about the ears since they tend to look very vague like for Audino and Chansey.

And so in conclusion, that would mean that, well, seems like all of those I listed have some kind of ears and paws so they're all considered Furry, except for Whimsicott, but it has horns so that would "save" it from being not furry, I think. But then that would mean that characters like Jumpluff should be tagged not furry, right ?

But also like I said, (Cure) Candy actually has some sort of curly tail, shouldn't that mean she should actually be a not, not furry if it would be shown ?

Also, I uploaded recently a picture post #792139 of a character that's basically like Cure Candy : No animal traits, chibi and such. I tagged it as not furry and humanoid, but then someone, again, removed those tags and it's actually a, mammal ? Let me guess : Those two orbs on each side that could be ears are what "saved" her ?

And as a last note, the Slurpuff I did is considered furry because she has paws, but then what about post #784996 ? She doesn't show any paws at all here, so should I tag this as not furry ?

oh my god

The not_furry tag is for stuff that isn't very related to the furry fandom. It counts for humans, non animal based humanoids (e.g., elves, slenderman), tentacles x humans, and other misc stuff (e.g., post #286896). Think of it like a slightly more strict version of the site's rules on relevancy, except it has no actual authority over what gets approved (though I've sometimes used it as a quick filter when I notice a bunch of irrelevant stuff in the queue, but that's about it).

That being said, not_furry is probably undertagged if we go by strict definitions.

GameManiac said:

And I'm certain the admins don't want us going around and tagging every reptilian image we see with the not_furry tag

Yeah definitely don't do that.

I absolutely didn't say anything about reptiles and avians that they should be tagged not furry whatsoever, I even said that the fandom actually covers them despite not being the typical anthro fluffy animals. They're animals anyway, so I know there shouldn't be any issues about them at all.

My only issues come to some characters that I would have thought are not-not furry despite not being based on any kind of animals particularly and how to figure out whenever I should then use this tag appropriately, as I mentioned with numerous examples. It can simply be kind of very tricky to assume is a character chould be not furry or not, like I noted with Audino/Chansey/Blissey. The only trait that could save them from this not_furry tag would be the ears, but they don't even look like animal ears at all here, so what should I do ?

parasprite said:
Yeah definitely don't do that.

Definitely don't do that.

I don't agree with all of the statements Neitsuke made (eg. humanoid seems correct for post #778349; it's comparable to Astro Boy, who is a rather stylized humanoid)..
but overall my takeaway from this topic is that not_furry isn't that good a categorization to have when posts like #787975 crop up. #787975 is more like ... is_this_furry. It's too abstract to be really sure, so I can understand the reasoning of 'not clearly not-furry, better remove that not_furry tag'. OTOH to a person who is blacklisting not_furry, is that the kind of post they don't want to see? I have no idea; it feels like there is a gap in the tag ontology here.

savageorange said:
I don't agree with all of the statements Neitsuke made (eg. humanoid seems correct for post #778349; it's comparable to Astro Boy, who is a rather stylized humanoid)..
but overall my takeaway from this topic is that not_furry isn't that good a categorization to have when posts like #787975 crop up. #787975 is more like ... is_this_furry. It's too abstract to be really sure, so I can understand the reasoning of 'not clearly not-furry, better remove that not_furry tag'. OTOH to a person who is blacklisting not_furry, is that the kind of post they don't want to see? I have no idea; it feels like there is a gap in the tag ontology here.

the character in post #787975 has animal paws, animal nose, animal mouth, animal fangs and the stuff on head could looks like animal ears. i think that it could p easily to be classified as furry since it looks basically just pink stylished pup or bear cub.

savageorange said:
humanoid seems correct for post #778349; it's comparable to Astro Boy, who is a rather stylized humanoid)..

But here the distinction is much easier and clear to see since he is basically a robot based on a human, you know, two terms that are not furry at all, while on the other hand Candy is, not really human at all, nor really based on any kind of animal at all even if you could maybe/I guess classify her as those kind of chibified generic animal characters, making her right this clear cut between what's furry or not. Also to add up, again, Candy actually has a curly tail on her design. The pictures don't show it because it's behind her back. So again what should I do here ? Leave it as is because of tag what you see except for pictures where the tail shows, or actually remove the humanoid tag, and maybe even the not_furry because a tail is an animal feature ?

My main argument is not that I demand her to be not furry, but more on having some guidelines about this whole situation. Like I tried to mention many times before, I am not sure whatsoever how to decide if I should be tagging not furry on some characters based on what I have been told, like for Chansey/Blissey since they have no animal features at all and are not based on any animals either. They you have others like Jumpluff and Gengar for example. What about Medicham and Gardevoir too ? They're also not based on animals, so what should I do here ?

And again I'm posting this same case I talked about here post #792139 Same basic kind of character build as Candy, but the tags not_furry and humanoid got removed. Should I add them back or is this guy actually right because like I said, she kind of has ears that kind of looks like dog ears maybe ?

I'm not arguing about if I'm right or not about this whole idea of what's furry or not, just asking for directions on what and how I should be doing this, because I mostly see a lot of contradictions for now and I still am not sure how to manage this

Neitsuke said:
But here the distinction is much easier and clear to see since he is basically a robot based on a human, you know, two terms that are not furry at all, while on the other hand Candy is, not really human at all, nor really based on any kind of animal at all even if you could maybe/I guess classify her as those kind of chibified generic animal characters, making her right this clear cut between what's furry or not. Also to add up, again, Candy actually has a curly tail on her design. The pictures don't show it because it's behind her back. So again what should I do here ? Leave it as is because of tag what you see except for pictures where the tail shows,

Yes. IMO this, at least, is clear from previous TWYS discussions. Unless you know of a specific exception to TWYS, the tail not being in the picture means it doesn't exist.

My main argument is not that I demand her to be not furry, but more on having some guidelines about this whole situation.

I fully agree with this; you have presented reasonable evidence that convinces me that the definition of not_furry is vague. I'm not entirely sure that we will actually manage to clarify current guidelines to the point that they will give a clear expectation for all these corner-case posts, though.

...

Like I tried to mention many times before, I am not sure whatsoever how to decide if I should be tagging not furry on some characters based on what I have been told, like for Chansey/Blissey since they have no animal features at all and are not based on any animals either. They you have others like Jumpluff and Gengar for example. What about Medicham and Gardevoir too ? They're also not based on animals, so what should I do here ?

I think there is a good case for adding a few lines to the wiki handling these types of cases.

However, not all of them are ambiguous:

• gengar is like.. a purple animal. Possibly a cat, but clearly has classic animal features AFAICS. furry.
• gardevoir is flora_fauna -> 'monster girl' -> furry.
• medicham seems to be either doglike (majority) or squidlike in most depictions -> furry. There appear to be a few depictions with really ambiguous appearance, but those are in a minority.

Ones I'm slightly less sure of:

• blissey seems to qualify as furry, being abstract but with the same general kind of animal indicators as jigglypuff etc; principally the ears. Same deal with most depictions of chansey.

Ones I have no idea and IMO definitely need documentation:

• jumpluff. TBH, I think it's a plum. With limbs. I supppoooooose that might be considered flora_fauna

And again I'm posting this same case I talked about here post #792139 Same basic kind of character build as Candy, but the tags not_furry and humanoid got removed. Should I add them back or is this guy actually right because like I said, she kind of has ears that kind of looks like dog ears maybe ?

I think that guy is right; but it's nowhere as clear a case as post #778349

I'd be honest and say that it really doesn't help me here, since most of the examples I see here are basically "Kind of looks like an animal or kind of has some animal attributes, so I say it's definitively not not furry"

Problem is you can basically use this reasoning with "almost" anything. Like here for instance, Candy kind of looks like a chibified hamster minus the big ears like for Hamtaro because they are replaced/hidden with the hair. I could even go as far as saying that she's based on a sheep due to how the hair and tail looks like, at least that's for Candy and not really this Cure Candy form, but still, but I could even say that she seems to have fur, you know, this usual very broad animal detail that the furry fandom is mostly about, can that count too ? It also doesn't help that Chansey and Blissey don't really have ears either, they're hair on the sides, but not ears.

I have no idea how you came up with this but Gardevoir is not a flora fauna, at all. It's a simple personification of a guardian angle, not a plant whatsoever.

But then also you come across other "species" like goo characters, Muk, Ditto and goo girls. The latter can be classified as monster girls, which by the way is a distinct broad of species of female monsters that hunt males for sexual needs, so flora_fauna isn't monster girls at all here.

So as I said, it's kind of hard to decide whenever I should tag them not furry or not when the only directive is "If it vaguely looks like animal, then it is furry". I get the purpose of the tag, more-so for obvious ones that obviously look more human than animals like fairies and elves, and characters that are obviously not animals like cakes and robots, but right in the middle, for a character that can potentially look like some chibi animal, then my only hint is "Look for animal attributes" for now, and that alone isn't really too precise where basically anything can be seen as being animal like.

I just find that kind of funny that this Slurpuff drawing I did, basically a walking cake with a cherry on top of it, is regarded as being more furry than a character that is easily identified as a cute chibi kemono

Problem is you can basically use this reasoning with "almost" anything.

Neither the admins nor I have missed this fact. not_furry is vague as hell. Nonetheless, it's the definition we have, and nobody, least of all you, has proposed anything better.

..I have no idea how you came up with this but Gardevoir is not a flora fauna, at all. It's a simple personification of a guardian angle, not a plant whatsoever.

TWYS. Pokemon can say what it wants about what that is.. but under TWYS, it's a plant. It doesn't seem ambiguous -- almost all depictions look like an anthro plant, ie. flora_fauna.

It's not monster girl, of course. That's what you get when you're persistently twitchy like this. I'm perfectly willing to escalate to, for example, explaining how blue and purple are really the same color, if it becomes necessary.

a character that is easily identified

It's not. Accept that. It is not easily identified as a kemono. You yourself have acknowledged it's ambiguous.

savageorange said:
TWYS. Pokemon can say what it wants about what that is.. but under TWYS, it's a plant. It doesn't seem ambiguous -- almost all depictions look like an anthro plant, ie. flora_fauna.

Doesn't look at all like a plant to me. Like, at all.

There's a difference between something being (partially) green and something being a plant.

I don't even get why you'd think it looks like a plant. It has no leaves, no roots, no flowers, no fruit, no vines, no stem, no twigs or branches... Essentially nothing that would actually make it look like a plant. The only thing I see is that maybe, maybe, if you really, really stretch it, and ignore everything else about the character, you could say it's hair is leaf-like. But seriously, I don't think you're going to be able to make that case convincingly.

Also, I'm curious. How would you argue that blue and purple are really the same color? I'd like to see that as well.

Neitsuke said:
I just find that kind of funny that this Slurpuff drawing I did, basically a walking cake with a cherry on top of it, is regarded as being more furry than a character that is easily identified as a cute chibi kemono

One doesn't exclude the other. Considering the collar, ears, and the tongue, Slurpuff seem like cupcake/poodle hybrids (which is also indicated by the original Japanese name, though that's outside information). They're doglike enough to be counted as furry.

The same applies to the other species tags. Such as...
post #731638 - Feline Goo. Furry.
post #703283 - Humanoid Goo. Not furry.
post #739281 - Feral food_creature. Furry.
post #530631 - Humanoid food_creature. Not furry.

Clawdragons said:
Doesn't look at all like a plant to me. Like, at all.

There's a difference between something being (partially) green and something being a plant.

I don't even get why you'd think it looks like a plant. It has no leaves, no roots, no flowers, no fruit, no vines, no stem, no twigs or branches... Essentially nothing that would actually make it look like a plant. The only thing I see is that maybe, maybe, if you really, really stretch it, and ignore everything else about the character, you could say it's hair is leaf-like. But seriously, I don't think you're going to be able to make that case convincingly.

Its hair and arms look leaf like. It's body looks trunk like (including the color). The combination of colors and shapes (though not the proportions) match certain types of palm trees pretty closely.

The two different rendering styles used by different artists for the hair (clumped vs individual threads) also correspond quite closely to different types of palm leaves.

TIL I know much more about palm trees than I realized.

Also, I'm curious. How would you argue that blue and purple are really the same color? I'd like to see that as well.

Dunno (purple's kind of a special case AFAIK; it would be much easier to argue that it's not a color at all). Probably through actively trying to make nonsense arguments. At the point that I start doing that kind of thing, I have abandoned any belief that anyone will convince you of anything, so the more obviously ridiculous and facepalm-y the argument, the better the GTFO-ability.

savageorange said:
(purple's kind of a special case AFAIK; it would be much easier to argue that it's not a color at all)

https://deron.meranda.us/ruminations/purple/

Clawdragons said:

Also, I'm curious. How would you argue that blue and purple are really the same color? I'd like to see that as well.

Roses are red
violets are blue
but purple is just
a supernumerary hue

Genjar said:
The same applies to the other species tags. Such as...
post #731638 - Feline Goo. Furry.
post #703283 - Humanoid Goo. Not furry.
post #739281 - Feral food_creature. Furry.
post #530631 - Humanoid food_creature. Not furry.

The big difference with these is you can actually see that these not furry pictures are based on human physiology while the others have clear animal features. As I said many times, that Cure Candy character is just basically right in the middle, +1 to human as a "bonus" because she doesn't really have anything animal like, but that also can be said for having nothing alike to humans : The ones you could mention could actually be stated for being animal too, like hair, eyes and a mouth, and the fact she's a chibi anthro would toss her more on the furry side than not.

Also I didn't mention it because I'm dum, but I was talking about this Candy on my previous post for this whole thing about how she could look like some cute hamster or sheep because of the hair. I get that Cure Candy doesn't really have anything animal about her, but then it started this whole discussion on whenever a character should be furry or not, when I took for granted some were before, like Pokémon (In general) and anthro plants for instance, and many other cases I'm not thinking about for now

savageorange said:
Its hair and arms look leaf like. It's body looks trunk like (including the color). The combination of colors and shapes (though not the proportions) match certain types of palm trees pretty closely.

The two different rendering styles used by different artists for the hair (clumped vs individual threads) also correspond quite closely to different types of palm leaves.

TIL I know much more about palm trees than I realized.

I can see already we are going to have to agree to disagree. The arms don't look leaf-like at all to me. And the body looks like a dress. I'm not sure where you are getting "trunk-like".

Dunno (purple's kind of a special case AFAIK; it would be much easier to argue that it's not a color at all). Probably through actively trying to make nonsense arguments. At the point that I start doing that kind of thing, I have abandoned any belief that anyone will convince you of anything, so the more obviously ridiculous and facepalm-y the argument, the better the GTFO-ability.

parasprite said:
https://deron.meranda.us/ruminations/purple/

Roses are red
violets are blue
but purple is just
a supernumerary hue

Now see, I don't object as strongly to the "not actually a color" argument. It was mostly the "purple is blue" argument that I was interested in seeing the justification for. That said, I don't agree with the argument. I'd still argue that white, black, pink and brown are colors. But that's not too important right now.

Reviving this old topic due to recent uploads I posted that I still am not totally sure if they're humanoid/not furry

post #836740
Very human-like body, but the head and facial features are heavily based on spiders, not mentioning the multiple arms. My guess was to not tag it as humanoid because of these details and it is furry because of spidey features, but the body is still really human-like to me, hence me being really lost here on tagging it humanoid or not

post #834909
It's based on a Pokemon, so I have no idea what I should be tagging here beside anthrofied. But my instincts and logic would tell me to tag it as not_furry since there's no animal features whatsoever (Which is the case for normal Medicham too)

post #843403
Kind-of-anthrofied (it's already anthro) Pokémon with a realistic human-like body, which made me tag it as humanoid. However, as for Medicham, I see no animal features at all here too beside those, ears/hair things, but I had no directions about those, but in short if those aren't animal features, Chansey/Blissey should then also be considered not furry

All humanoids. And since they were humanoids to begin with, humanoidized (and anthrofied) don't apply either.

Muffet is a bit problematic. Maybe she should be tagged as animal_humanoid, even though that tag is overwhelmingly dominated by mammals..? Or do we need an arachnid_humanoid tag?

I'd consider those Pokemon to be not_furry, but there's been some arguments about it (that all pokemon are inherently 'furry', even ones such as Mr. Mime). So I don't tag them as not_furry myself, at least not until we get an admin ruling on that.

Woow, no idea how I managed to miss this one either

Here's an excerpt from another post, more to come later:

[..]

Come to think of it, wouldn't furrification apply..only to anthrofied?

Unless we use the word in a similar context to 'furry' in not_furry,

which refers to...something
I honestly don't know what the criteria for not_furry is either

Apparently supernatural entities, constructs, aliens etc aren't considered furry

..Are insects and such considered 'furry'? They don't even have fur

--

Genjar et al had interesting replies as well, might quote their replies in here too

titanmelon said:
Woow, no idea how I managed to miss this one either

Three months old, so some of it is already out of date.
Spider_humanoid was created. Though I would've preferred arachnid_humanoid. Now we need a separate tag for other kinds of arachnids. Then again, scorpions and spiders don't look that much alike anyway, so maybe that's for the best.

Wow, things are moving quickly, if a 3 month tag forum is already out of date in places, I'm impressed

Yeah, would've preferred arachnid as well, all of them are currently in the tag group:fictional species wiki anyway

----

Apparently post #865795 isn't considered 'furry'

Thought that was interesting

Edit: Looks like NMNY agrees as well

titanmelon said:
Apparently post #865795 isn't considered 'furry'

Thought that was interesting

i do no not believe that a solo human with stained glass in the background that depicts animal heads would count as furry.

Mutisija said:
i do no not believe that a solo human with stained glass in the background that depicts animal heads would count as furry.

Lion, scorpion, lobster, goat, bovine aren't considered furry? They're in the window there.

Furrin_Gok said:
Lion, scorpion, lobster, goat, bovine aren't considered furry? They're in the window there.

as i said, they are just pictures on window and i do not believe that it would make it furry. like imagine a drawing of human sitting in their room and they have a framed picture of dog on their wall, would a drawing like that count as furry too?

Yeah you can't just toss a small animal somewhere in the background and call it furry art. I don't tag these pics as not_furry, but they don't belong on e6.

Mutisija said:
i do no not believe that a solo human with stained glass in the background that depicts animal heads would count as furry.

leomole said:
Yeah you can't just toss a small animal somewhere in the background and call it furry art. I don't tag these pics as not_furry, but they don't belong on e6.

Not saying you're wrong, but why?

titanmelon said:
Not saying you're wrong, but why?

According to Not_furry the tag doesn't belong:

If a furry character is also present in the image, the not_furry tag should not be used.

It doesn't say "If it's a major part of the image," but "if it's in the image at all."

Furrin_Gok said:
Lion, scorpion, lobster, goat, bovine aren't considered furry? They're in the window there.

Inanimate objects are usually not considered to be furry.
It's no different from, let's say, a human child holding a teddy bear.

Hm..those are interesting points

I wonder how many discrete responses you'd get if you asked 100 people to define what 'furry' meant on the site

Provided it doesn't devolve into shitflinging, may consider making a forum poll thing for it

-

Well, we can't really discuss anything about that image anymore because it's deleted now. Seems like the bar for high quality or "special" in some way is preetty high if one of the most famous art nouveau painters' most famous works can't make the cut

-

Maybe I'll bring this up again on another upload, but it's probably not going to be one of mine;
because apparently, the rule about uploading 'not furry' content that gets deleted can lead to disciplinary action (records) if they are repeatedly broken.

The Mona Lisa wouldn't be relevant to us even if Leonardo da Vinci would have thrown a picture of a cat into it.

Yes, I understand that, but why?

In that example, there's a feral cat in it

are feral cats not considered furry?

Is it because there's no cat penis?

Is it because there's no hawt interspecies cat poon on poon action?

Why not?

Really hope this isn't gonna be one of those 'because the rules said so, now go to your room' type things, because that'd be a really disappointing waste of time

Now I'm starting to worry a bit that all those ignorant, unfounded cries of 'e621 is really for furry porn', and those complaints on non-explicit posts about something not being porn in upload comments may not be so unfounded nor ignorant after all

-
(first emphasis mine)
[[help:home|Our mission: To archive the best/strangest/most excellent animal/anthro-related artwork, regardless of content, for all those who wish to view it.]]

Does this need to be updated/modified? Or am I completely misinterpreting that

titanmelon said:
Now I'm starting to worry a bit that all those ignorant, unfounded cries of 'e621 is really for furry porn', and those complaints on non-explicit posts about something not being porn in upload comments may not be so unfounded nor ignorant after all

-
(first emphasis mine)
[[help:home|Our mission: To archive the best/strangest/most excellent animal/anthro-related artwork, regardless of content, for all those who wish to view it.]]

Does this need to be updated/modified? Or am I completely misinterpreting that

As I said "picture of a cat" not a real cat. If the Mona Lisa had a real cat in her arms I'd totally approve it unless it's like 2mm large in the background.

The important thing in the sentence you quoted is "animal/anthro-related artwork", Pictures of animals inside a picture is one step too far away for us, because then we'd run the risk of getting people arguing that an image or a comic is relevant to us because a newspaper in the background of the image makes it relevant to us, even if literally nothing else in the image is.
As long as there are anthro characters or "real" animals in it it's relevant to us, as soon as those "characters" are just drawings or photos within the drawing they are no longer relevant to us.

And yes, it has happened that people tried to argue that we should allow pure human content into the page just because there was tiny poster of one of the MLP ponies somewhere in the background of the image.

post #274191

More like that: http://fatcatart.com/gallery/?lang=en
My favorite: http://fatcatart.com/2014/06/neizvestnaya-dama-s-izvestnym-kotom/?lang=en (MIRROR)

leomole said:
More like that: http://fatcatart.com/gallery/?lang=en

This amuses me probably more than it should.

:V

-

NotMeNotYou said:
[..]
Pictures of animals inside a picture is one step too far away for us, because then we'd run the risk of getting people arguing that an image or a comic is relevant to us because a newspaper in the background of the image makes it relevant to us, even if literally nothing else in the image is.
[..]

Okok, as much as I want to say otherwise, that stance is exceedingly-fair both ways, and is probably the best of 'both worlds'-

• the "this isn't furry based on the unspoken, macro-cultural standards of what furry is, so it must go" types, as well as the

• 'how are you not seeing the animals RIGHT THERE??' types

Especially when you consider the more permissive alternatives (which, interestingly-enough for those who remember), that caused even more chaos in both the long and short term

Anyway, maybe another site altogether for such 'borderline' content is called for?

e926 is already a thing for sfw posts, maybe a similar idea for the 'other' types of furry stuff that's not really considered furry by most of the community on here

-

Short version

It is my opinion based on observations, not a fact, that unless you can come up with a better policy which doesn't break stuff for a majority of the community, it's likely that your interests are going to remain marginal until something more accommodating happens for everyone involved

Here's something that I'm not sure about.
Are generic winged humanoids furry or not? Harpies seem furryish enough, but what the ones such as these:

post #763778 post #541054 post #77195 post #398995

Not furry or furry? Considering those furry seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

Yoooo I'm bumping the issue a second time.

Just noticed that Whimsicott is now getting the humanoid tag, which really starts to make me feel uncomfortable now, because Whimsicott really has nothing human-like, kind of how Cure Candy also has nothing human like beside anime eyes and hair, which at least here makes some sense. However Whimsicott has really nothing to do with "humaness" beside being bipedal and, well that's kind of about it.

It has horns on the sides and from what I heard many times, humanoid is about the lack of animal features while being human anthropomorphic, which Whimsicott doesn't seem to be at all. I did notice the semi-anthro tag, which seems to be used for this one kind of characters I was mentioning about with the case of Cure Candy. Should it be used instead, and be mutually exclusive with humanoid, or for cases like Cure Candy, using both at the same time ?

Neitsuke said:
Yoooo I'm bumping the issue a second time.

Just noticed that Whimsicott is now getting the humanoid tag, which really starts to make me feel uncomfortable now, because Whimsicott really has nothing human-like, kind of how Cure Candy also has nothing human like beside anime eyes and hair, which at least here makes some sense. However Whimsicott has really nothing to do with "humaness" beside being bipedal and, well that's kind of about it.

It has horns on the sides and from what I heard many times, humanoid is about the lack of animal features while being human anthropomorphic, which Whimsicott doesn't seem to be at all. I did notice the semi-anthro tag, which seems to be used for this one kind of characters I was mentioning about with the case of Cure Candy. Should it be used instead, and be mutually exclusive with humanoid, or for cases like Cure Candy, using both at the same time ?

Rather than joining in tagging Whimsicott as humanoid, you should report the people who are, as they're applying irrelevant tags.

It's a brownie-like species that doesn't resemble any real or mythological animal. No snout, no tail, no animal features at all beyond the possible horns (whenever those aren't drawn as seeds etc), and horns are shared by many humanoid species such as demons and satyrs. Not to mention that Whimsicott is clearly based on the cotton plant.

Therefore not anthro. Which leaves humanoid as the closest match, sometimes combined with flora_fauna, depending on how they are drawn.

Genjar said:
It's a brownie-like species that doesn't resemble any real or mythological animal. No snout, no tail, no animal features at all beyond the possible horns (whenever those aren't drawn as seeds etc), and horns are shared by many humanoid species such as demons and satyrs. Not to mention that Whimsicott is clearly based on the cotton plant.

Therefore not anthro. Which leaves humanoid as the closest match, sometimes combined with flora_fauna, depending on how they are drawn.

A lot of times, Whimsicott is drawn in a humanoid form, yes, but
post #876334
This looks like a sheep to me, not a humanoid. The ones that combine the exagerated sheep features with a humanoid form could also get caprine and humanoid, but these standard ones are only caprine and usually anthro (A few miss even the anthro bit).

Furrin_Gok said:
This looks like a sheep to me, not a humanoid.

No matter how I look at that, all I see is a humanoidized cotton plant. Not a sheep. The official art even includes the stem, although that's outside information.

Genjar said:
No matter how I look at that, all I see is a humanoidized cotton plant. Not a sheep. The official art even includes the stem, although that's outside information.

I first saw whimsicott without knowledge it was a Pokemon, and saw a sheep right away. It's supposed to be a plant-based sheep after all--it's just got a coat of cotton instead of wool.
post #846325
Or are you saying this looks like a humanoid/anthro cotton plant, too? I've taken a look at cotton, and when you can't see the stems, it looks the same as wool. Saying that "it's definitely cotton" is using outside knowledge.

Furrin_Gok said:
post #846325
Or are you saying this looks like a humanoid/anthro cotton plant, too?

Tail, snout, large ears, actual wool? That's an obvious anthro sheep.

Whereas whimsicott is a chibi human-shaped plant creature with a giant ball of cotton as hair. I really don't see any similarity at all. And never have, as far as I can remember: it has always seemed like a plant creature to me. Might be because I'm into gardening and have grown cotton, but knowing what real plants looks like is not outside information.

Genjar said:
Tail, snout, large ears, actual wool? That's an obvious anthro sheep.

Whereas whimsicott is a chibi human-shaped plant creature with a giant ball of cotton as hair. I really don't see any similarity at all.

How do you differenciate cotton and wool, then? Because they look identical to me.

Furrin_Gok said:
How do you differenciate cotton and wool, then? Because they look identical to me.

Wool grows on the body, not as hair. And usually not as large puffy lumps, but that depends on the artstyle. Though honestly, until now I wouldn't even have considered the possibility that it could be wool. As I said, that has always looked like a plant creature to me.

Since you see it as anthro and I see it as humanoid, this could clearly use more opinions. We certainly can't tag them as both. So I'll go along with whatever the majority sees.

imo it sometimes looks like anthro sheep but most of time it looks either like caprine based humanoid or cotton plant based humanoid.

post #876334
here i think that it looks like humanoid

Mutisija said:
imo it sometimes looks like anthro sheep but most of time it looks either like caprine based humanoid or cotton plant based humanoid.

Yeah, sometimes they're drawn with actual sheep horns and other caprine features such as hooves, in which case anthro can be applicable.

As far as I see it, the difference between animal_humanoid and anthro is that the former has minimal animal features (such as horns), while still being mostly humanoid. And I'd put much of the whimsicott art in that category (or flora_fauna + humanoid): some animal and/or plant features, but not animal-like enough to be anthro.

Genjar said:
Yeah, sometimes they're drawn with actual sheep horns and other caprine features such as hooves, in which case anthro can be applicable.

As far as I see it, the difference between animal_humanoid and anthro is that the former has minimal animal features (such as horns), while still being mostly humanoid. And I'd put much of the whimsicott art in that category (or flora_fauna + humanoid): some animal and/or plant features, but not animal-like enough to be anthro.

We should probably have a plant_humanoid tag that can imply flora_fauna and humanoid, but I don't see Whimsicott as a plant, even with the green hair/horns.

Furrin_Gok said:
We should probably have a plant_humanoid tag that can imply flora_fauna and humanoid

Maybe, though if we add one then we probably should to add it for all the other forms too. Plant_taur, plant_feral, plant_monster... plant_waddling_head? That seems over-complicated.

Other supplementary tags (undead, goo, etc) don't have such subtags either. So we'd likely end up with tags such as goo_humanoid and undead_humanoid if we go down that road.

Genjar said:
Maybe, though if we add one then we probably should to add it for all the other forms too. Plant_taur, plant_feral, plant_monster... plant_waddling_head? That seems over-complicated.

Other supplementary tags (undead, goo, etc) don't have such subtags either. So we'd likely end up with tags such as goo_humanoid and undead_humanoid if we go down that road.

Goo and Undead are more of states of being than your standard species type. Being a Fora Fauna, on the other hand, is a perfectly standard species type.