post #1265742

What do you think? If so, how would you tag the antennae? If not, what species tag would you give it?

Oh, yay... the wiki for not_furry covers animal humanoids, it says that they do count as "furry" beings.

looks 99% human to me. but then again, a lot of touhou characters fit into the same category as "girl think she's a battleship/tank/gun/etc. when she's literally a human", right? those antennae could easily just be a headband or something.

i really have to wonder where exactly the line between fantasy/delusion and reality is drawn when it comes to characters like this. i would say this post is not_furry but then there's the problem i pointed out above. so the only real answer i can give is "it's complicated".

If it's being tagged as an animal humanoid, that probably means it's furry.

Let's take a moment to acknowledge the fact that she is being labelled a firefly when literally the only non-human feature on her is the antennae. Minus the antennae, she's a human.

BlueDingo said:
Let's take a moment to acknowledge the fact that she is being labelled a firefly when literally the only non-human feature on her is the antennae. Minus the antennae, she's a human.

But plus the antennae, she's not a human.

Strikerman said:
But plus the antennae, she's not a human.

But is it a firefly?

I believe I approved some of this character: wriggle_nightbug approvedby:Lance_Armstrong

It's very marginal, but :

The things that make humans not-human under our rules are visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human

• Examples are the presence of animal body parts (dog ears, cat tail, pig snout, horse penis, etc), alien body parts, plant body parts, etc

leomole said:
But is it a firefly?

I really don't think we should be tagging these things when all we have are antennae. That's just insect humanoid, and we should stop there.

Furrin_Gok said:
That's just insect humanoid, and we should stop there.

I concur. Can't tag anything more specific than that by twys.

Okay consensus seems to be change it to insect_humanoid so I'll do that.

(This thread is close enough for the topic, so I'm gonna reuse it instead of making a new one.)

I finally got around to working on the not_furry project. That tag is severely underused, but I have to admit that there are a lot of unclear cases. Gonna need some kind of consensus for how these should be tagged.

Let's start with this:
post #1290933 post #1289834

Draenei. Animal humanoids (and therefore 'furry'), or just generic demonic humanoids (and 'not furry')? They have ambiguous horns, tail, and hooves. Could go either way, as far as I can see.

Genjar said:
(This thread is close enough for the topic, so I'm gonna reuse it instead of making a new one.)

I finally got around to working on the not_furry project. That tag is severely underused, but I have to admit that there are a lot of unclear cases. Gonna need some kind of consensus for how these should be tagged.

Let's start with this:
post #1289834

Draenei. Animal humanoids (and therefore 'furry'), or just generic demonic humanoids (and 'not furry')? They have ambiguous horns, tail, and hooves. Could go either way, as far as I can see.

Not furry. They are Eredar (a possible implication) and are basically magical beings. Draenei are basically the alliance versions, lead by Velen the Divine.

The hooves should be overlooked because it also describes demonic beings of a small variety, and they may not display their feet. The tail can also be placed on various non-humanoid beings, but we are only talking about not_furry.

Should humanoids be tagged animal humanoid if they have animal genitalia? If an elf has a dog dick, should we tag it as dog_humanoid as well as elf?

I try to err on the side of caution when using the not_furry tag. I've been leaving draenei alone. Do I consider them furry? Definitely not. But they have hooves so I don't give them the not_furry tag.

Same thing for humans or elves with animal penises. If dog ears are enough to make a character furry I guess a dog penis is too. And yes I guess that makes them dog_humanoids.

Demons can be difficult to tag. The uploader tagged post #1289912 as a dragon_humanoid but it looked like a demon to me and the source confirmed this so I tagged it as not_furry. But it's not obvious.

post #1265742

This character probably shouldn't be considered furry, because (as far as I can see) it isn't an animal humanoid, just a humanoid.

One characteristic typical of certain animal group, in many cases, isn't enough for a humanoid to be considered an animal humanoid. If that were the case, most pixies and demons would be tagged as such.

p.s. I know that I am late.

Genjar said:
(This thread is close enough for the topic, so I'm gonna reuse it instead of making a new one.)

I finally got around to working on the not_furry project. That tag is severely underused, but I have to admit that there are a lot of unclear cases. Gonna need some kind of consensus for how these should be tagged.

Let's start with this:
post #1290933 post #1289834

Draenei. Animal humanoids (and therefore 'furry'), or just generic demonic humanoids (and 'not furry')? They have ambiguous horns, tail, and hooves. Could go either way, as far as I can see.

I would consider as 'not furry':

I) anything with a "humanoid body" and not based in any specific animal or group of animals (humans excluded).

II) Anything amorphous.

Humanoid body :

• 1-3 heads (disregarding decapitation).

• flat face (i.e. no snout).

• torso (thorax + abdomen)

• limbs (legs + arms).

• straight limbs while in rest position.

• plantigrade feet and biped.

• 1-3 leg/arm pairs (disregarding amputation).

Any additional feature (wigs, horns, tail) don't change that, unless it modify one of the aforementioned (hooves, winged arms)

O16 said:
Any additional feature (wigs, horns, tail) don't change that, unless it modify one of the aforementioned (hooves, winged arms)

But the Draenei have hooves?

I'd say draenei are no more furry than Satan is. Would Satan count as furry?

Strikerman said:
But the Draenei have hooves?

Then (according those criteria), they shouldn't be considered 'not furry', unless the post in question don't show their hooves (Genjar's left example).

O16 said:
Then (according those criteria), they shouldn't be considered 'not furry', unless tthe post in question don't show their hooves (Genjar's left example).

There's one of the problems. The same creature can be both furry and not furry depending on how much of it is showing. You should be able to tell whether or not it's furry related regardless of exposure level.

BlueDingo said:
There's one of the problems. The same creature can be both furry and not furry depending on how much of it is showing. You should be able to tell whether or not it's furry related regardless of exposure level.

Actually, the level of exposure is very relevant due to our TWYS rule; for example: the same character could be tagged either as 'satyr' or 'human' depending of how it is portrayed (the former is considered furry, but the latter isn't).

O16 said:
Actually, the level of exposure is very relevant due to our TWYS rule; for example: the same character could be tagged either as 'satyr' or 'human' depending of how it is portrayed (the former is considered furry, but the latter isn't).

But if you're able to identify it as a satyr, you're not going to question whether it's furry or not based on exposure. The presence or absence of a draenei's feet doesn't change whether or not it's furry.

Side note: How do you pronounce draenei? I keep pronouncing it as "jrae-nee".

BlueDingo said:
Side note: How do you pronounce draenei? I keep pronouncing it as "jrae-nee".

The wiki says "DRAN-eye, DRAHN-eye, or DRAYN-eye." Those all sound the same to me.

leomole said:
I try to err on the side of caution when using the not_furry tag. I've been leaving draenei alone. Do I consider them furry? Definitely not. But they have hooves so I don't give them the not_furry tag.

Yes, seems like I may just end up skipping them, especially since there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus about how to tag them. I have about 20000 posts to check in that project, so it's unfortunate that so many of them are... tricky.

Demons are especially hard to pigeonhole. (Satyrs, at least, usually have goat-like legs and fit well enough in the animal_humanoid category.)

I'm also having the same problem with gargoyles. Brooklyn_(gargoyles) and Firebrand usually look anthroish enough to count as furry. But ones such as Demona_(gargoyles) are far more ambiguous.

Strikerman said:
The wiki says "DRAN-eye, DRAHN-eye, or DRAYN-eye." Those all sound the same to me.

I pronounce it Dr-ae-neye. I try to raise my voice on the eye part. If you pronounce the word Aether, it is the same starting pronunciation.

Another pronunciation is Dr-AH-neye, but it is a bit more slurred. Pick your poison, it's not like they care...

BlueDingo said:
But if you're able to identify it as a satyr, you're not going to question whether it's furry or not based on exposure. The presence or absence of a draenei's feet doesn't change whether or not it's furry.

By TWYS it does. If an image shows enough of certain character for it to be identifiable as a draenei, however doesn't show enough corporal features to classify it as furry, then it isn't furry.
A similar thing happens to hylians. even a fan character could be recognized as a hylian due to context, clothing, and maybe its features; but even though, there is nothing that identify it as humanoid if its pointy ears are hidden.

Note: but for some reason 'hylian' implies 'humanoid'.

Genjar said:

Demons are especially hard to pigeonhole. (Satyrs, at least, usually have goat-like legs and fit well enough in the animal_humanoid category.)

Wait, now satyrs may be tagged as humanoids?
I though we don't used this classifications to satyrs, taurs, lamias, merfolks etc.

O16 said:
they shouldn't be considered 'not furry', unless tthe post in question don't show their hooves (Genjar's left example).

Yes I have tagged draenei as not_furry when their hooves aren't shown.

Genjar said:
I'm also having the same problem with gargoyles. Brooklyn_(gargoyles) and Firebrand usually look anthroish enough to count as furry. But ones such as Demona_(gargoyles) are far more ambiguous.

Yes the facial structure of Firebrand suggests an animal but Demona is a tough call. Again I've been ignoring it although my gut says it's not_furry.

Ambiguous cases aside, thanks for taking an interest in applying the not_furry tag properly! It's on my blacklist and I have to add it to posts constantly. I'm really glad it's getting some attention.

O16 said:
I though we don't used this classifications to satyrs, taurs, lamias, merfolks etc.

Satyrs are bipedal and have a mix of humanoid and animal parts. Not really different from, let's say, harpies. Therefore animal_humanoid is a good enough fit. Doesn't apply to the other three, mostly because they're not bipeds.

'course, that only applies to ones that have humanoid parts. Not to ones such as post #1290395.

leomole said:
Ambiguous cases aside, thanks for taking an interest in applying the not_furry tag properly!

Someone has to. One mass tagger has made a mess of the humanoid tag in the past months (there's a lot of anthros mixed in now, etc). Figured that I might as well fill in not_furry at the same time, since I'll have to check all of those manually anyway. :/

O16 said:
A similar thing happens to hylians. even a fan character could be recognized as a hylian due to context, clothing, and maybe its features; but even though, there is nothing that identify it as humanoid if its pointy ears are hidden.

Clothing?

O16 said:
Note: but for some reason 'hylian' implies 'humanoid'.

To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't been aliased to elf yet. I know they're not elves but anyone who doesn't know what a hylian is would call them one.

BlueDingo said:
Clothing?

Coincidentally, I just had to untag hylian from this...
post #1201000
...so I could remove the humanoid tag.

BlueDingo said:
Clothing?

Yes, typical garments worn by hylians (may differ according the location and moment in history).

BlueDingo said:
To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't been aliased to elf yet. I know they're not elves but anyone who doesn't know what a hylian is would call them one.

Well, we do keep the 'earth_pony' tag, which is basically used for any horse drawn in mlp style.

Genjar said:
Satyrs are bipedal and have a mix of humanoid and animal parts. Not really different from, let's say, harpies. Therefore animal_humanoid is a good enough fit. Doesn't apply to the other three, mostly because they're not bipeds.

'course, that only applies to ones that have humanoid parts. Not to ones such as post #1290395.

I will keep that in mind.

One more question: Does that means satyrs like the one in your example can be tagged with 'anthro'?

O16 said:
One more question: Does that means satyrs like the one in your example can be tagged with 'anthro'?

Creatures such as these...
post #1191415 post #575155
...are feral. Same logic applies to anthros: it's anthro if all parts are anthro, doesn't matter if the parts are mismatched.

O16 said:
Yes, typical garments worn by hylians (may differ between locations and moments in history).

But pretty much everything hylians wear was also worn by real humans during medieval times.

O16 said:
Well, we do keep the 'earth_pony' tag, which is basically used for any horse drawn in mlp style.

The proportions are way different. Anyone can tell these apart.

post #182835post #1138616

How often do people use earth_pony on images like the second one?

Genjar said:
Creatures such as these...
post #1191415 post #575155
...are feral. Same logic applies to anthros: it's anthro if all parts are anthro, doesn't matter if the parts are mismatched.

Sure.

BlueDingo said:
But pretty much everything hylians wear was also worn by real humans during medieval times.

I really doubt you would find registers of someone dressed like this ¹ during medieval times, regardless of the place.

¹ Male outfit, kakariko village (tloz: breath of the wild).

BlueDingo said:

The proportions are way different. Anyone can tell these apart.

post #182835post #1138616

How often do people use earth_pony on images like the second one?

As I said, "any horse drawn in mlp style". Such discrepancies in the proportions are basically resulting of the very toony style. If your right example were drawn/painted in the same way as the left one, the differences would rapidly sublimate.