Given our ban on Human Only outside of pools, a lot of users have been going around asking why their work was being deleted as human. It may actually be best to have a place to ask that beforehand--and the irc doesn't always have enough activity to answer the question. Additionally, new users can't see the old answers--IRC is only archived for the individual who archives it, not everybody else.

To start off, would an otherwise human but with feather pubes be humanoid, or human?

If this is anything to go by, they'd probably be classified as a bird.

There is an entire section in the Uploading Guidelines dedicated to humans.
And no, I don't think some feathers make a human relevant.

How about mobile suits of armor? If we can't see any trace of the body underneath, do we assume it's human where the armor's phenotype matches (I ask phenotype instead of something else, because I've had a couple of people tell me White Knight's armored appearance resembles an anthro pig), or do we assume it's animate_inanimate armor?
If it's the former, then do we consider it a dullahand when the head portion is removed, eyes still present, and being used as a watering can? (I'd offer a link but I can't find it anymore)

Furrin_Gok said:
How about mobile suits of armor? If we can't see any trace of the body underneath, do we assume it's human where the armor's phenotype matches (I ask phenotype instead of something else, because I've had a couple of people tell me White Knight's armored appearance resembles an anthro pig), or do we assume it's animate_inanimate armor?

Those are rarely approved anymore. The one in your example would probably be deleted as a human. But generally, you can tag fully armored characters as ambiguous_form.

What about other kinds of suits? I see a lot of stuff like post #1213535, post #1200682, post #1131797, post #1046772, post #1017674 etc. where the suit covers enough of the face that there's no reason to believe it's anything but a colored human. Do these get accepted because the approver knows it's a humanoid not a human?

leomole said:
What about other kinds of suits? I see a lot of stuff like post #1213535, post #1200682, post #1131797, post #1046772, post #1017674 etc. where the suit covers enough of the face that there's no reason to believe it's anything but a colored human. Do these get accepted because the approver knows it's a humanoid not a human?

Those tend to get a free pass because they fall into the alien category. Which is (as you can see) bit of a loophole. post #1046772 in particular looks like it could be just a futuristic human in a suit.

Genjar said:
Those tend to get a free pass because they fall into the alien category. Which is (as you can see) bit of a loophole. post #1046772 in particular looks like it could be just a futuristic human in a suit.

There are several loopholes like this. Biggest examples are pointy ears, most notably Link/Zelda who look entirely human other than that and tentacles which are deemed relevant, even if they aren't count as character and only character on image was human.

I did actually ask about this, because I wouldn't be opposed to not accepting hylians only images for example, but in the end there's so many edge cases, which would make so many exceptions to guidelines with so little gain. For example saying that pointy ears do not count would make many elfs and orcs to be deemed human only.

leomole said:
What about other kinds of suits? I see a lot of stuff like post #1213535, post #1200682, post #1131797, post #1046772, post #1017674 etc. where the suit covers enough of the face that there's no reason to believe it's anything but a colored human. Do these get accepted because the approver knows it's a humanoid not a human?

When it comes to quarians, the mask is practically part of them. I could see that one going either way.

Furrin_Gok said:
When it comes to quarians, the mask is practically part of them. I could see that one going either way.

The Quarians also only have three fingers. If it were four fingers we could chalk it up to being a human drawn that way to save time, but it's specifically three, and they are not shaped like human fingers, nor does it look like a glove that just has more than one finger in the same section.

kamimatsu said:
The Quarians also only have three fingers.

That's a good point. post #1200682 and post #1046772 are still basically just humans though. Hopefully we'll find a good way to close this loophole in the future.

leomole said:
That's a good point. post #1200682 and post #1046772 are still basically just humans though. Hopefully we'll find a good way to close this loophole in the future.

the second one looks closer to robot than human

kamimatsu said:
The Quarians also only have three fingers. If it were four fingers we could chalk it up to being a human drawn that way to save time, but it's specifically three, and they are not shaped like human fingers, nor does it look like a glove that just has more than one finger in the same section.

Finger differences, I believe, don't count.

Do we assume slit_pupils (and similarly, horizontal_pupils) to be contacts if a character otherwise does not meet the non-human standards?

Furrin_Gok said:
Do we assume slit_pupils (and similarly, horizontal_pupils) to be contacts if a character otherwise does not meet the non-human standards?

Looking at stuff that fits that description that has been deleted as irrelevant I'd say slit pupils aren't enough slit_pupils humanoid status:deleted hassource:true