Shygirls are based off Shyguys from Mario ... which I'm guessing are male just by their name, yet I see only a handful of Shygirl images are tagged with crossgender ... shouldn't they all have that tag?

Nope. Shyguy is just a species name, they actually have no assigned gender.

^
|

That.

Should shygirl even be a tag? (I mean its tagged a lot but...)

Theyre just female or gynomorphic shyguys.

GDelscribe said:
Should shygirl even be a tag? (I mean its tagged a lot but...)

Theyre just female or gynomorphic shyguys.

Rather leave out the feminine/gynomorphic bit and just say Humanoidized.
post #1050693 post #497605 post #669722
I mean really I'd classify these as the same thing, just the opposite gender.

Those are sort of a class more than individuals I guess, but would it qualify for...I think it's rule 63? One of those rules of the internet things. I'd swear we have some tag for that. Genderswap or some such thing.

notnobody said:
Those are sort of a class more than individuals I guess, but would it qualify for...I think it's rule 63? One of those rules of the internet things. I'd swear we have some tag for that. Genderswap or some such thing.

It's rule 63. It aliases to crossgender.

Should shyguy even be a tag? It's just a human with a mask.

leomole said:
Should shyguy even be a tag? It's just a human with a mask.

yes it should. they have very distinctive design and prople do use the tag for searching and blacklisting. though species tag type might not be exactly the best possible for them

Mutisija said:
yes it should. they have very distinctive design and prople do use the tag for searching and blacklisting. though species tag type might not be exactly the best possible for them

It fits into Species better than General so that people notice it quicker. And it's more of a species than a character, while not-at-all an artist or copyright.

I think we should change it to general:shyguy_mask. It matches other tags like gas_mask and skull_mask.

What if there's a character that's a fox wearing a shyguy_mask? It's not a shyguy. Making it a general tag is more useful and more consistent.

leomole said:
Should shyguy even be a tag? It's just a human with a mask.

We don't approve them if they look like humans in masks (and if there's nothing else relevant).

But most of the approved ones shouldn't get any mask tags. The ones that are blushing or showing emotion should be considered to be a non-human faces, instead of a masks.

Genjar said:
We don't approve them if they look like humans in masks (and if there's nothing else relevant).

But most of the approved ones shouldn't get the mask tag. masks are incapable of showing emotion or blushing, so those should be considered non-human faces.

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/ExpressiveMask.jpg

BlueDingo said:
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/ExpressiveMask.jpg

Irrelevant, since that clearly looks like a mask.
Whereas in case of shyguys and shygirls there's often nothing to indicate that it's a mask. So we stick to twys and consider them to be faces, instead tagging them as masks based on outside information.

Genjar said:
Irrelevant, since that clearly looks like a mask.

So do most other instances of expressive masks.

Genjar said:
Whereas in case of shyguys and shygirls there's often nothing to indicate that it's a mask.

You mean the strap holding it on doesn't count?

BlueDingo said:
You mean the strap holding it on doesn't count?

It only counts if it looks like a mask strap. Come on, you know that posts are handled on case-by-case basis.

Even with the strap, it often looks like some kind of hair band over their hood. Which, what if that's actually not a hood, and it's their hair?

Regardless, the idea that they're some sort of human underneath the mask is only fanon as far as I'm aware, and even if it was canon, it's still Tagging What You Know, not See.

What about post #1094628? The anatomy points to human. The mask is 3 dimensional, has straps, has hair poking out from behind it and is clearly not a face.

We can't assume it's human but by the same token we can't assume it's not. If a picture showed just human legs and arms, with the head and body hidden behind a rock, would it be allowed on e6? No. By prevailing evidence post #1094628 is human and should be deleted.

leomole said:
What about post #1094628? The anatomy points to human. The mask is 3 dimensional, has straps, has hair poking out from behind it and is clearly not a face.

We can't assume it's human but by the same token we can't assume it's not. If a picture showed just human legs and arms, with the head and body hidden behind a rock, would it be allowed on e6? No. By prevailing evidence post #1094628 is human and should be deleted.

That is something under debate amongst the human/humanoid thing. We have to assume one way or the other, so, yes, which way do we assume?

Furrin_Gok said:
That is something under debate amongst the human/humanoid thing. We have to assume one way or the other, so, yes, which way do we assume?

Probably just employ some basic Occam's Razor-like logic and go with human in this case, really.

• We DO have partial visible information showing that she's human.
• We DON'T have visible information confirming she's not human - instead we have a LACK of information, because said information is obscured by her mask.

It's far more reasonable to base it on what we DO have instead of allowing ourselves to be caught up and paralyzed by the near-infinite number of things she might look like underneath the mask since it's not possible to confirm any of them: Maybe she has a human face, Maybe she has an alien face, Maybe she has a furry face, Maybe she has no face; It's not solid, so it's not a strong case.

This is the same sort of reasoning that lets us look at a furry anthro canine and confidently say "That's a furry anthro canine" instead of saying "Wait, we can't call it a furry anthro canine, because it just MIGHT be a human wearing an immaculately detailed fursuit!"; Or likewise, allows us to look at a bust picture of a female from the waist up and call it a female, instead of saying "But wait, it might be a Herm, or even a Taur from the waist down!"

There's really no good reason to try to make it more complicated if you don't have to IMO.