Implicating human → humanoid
Link to implication

Reason:

If humans aren't humanoid, what is?

I made another post about getting rid of the anthro tag & the only concern with that is it would make it impossible to search for any pictures of all-male ferals with no furries in the background. Implicating human with humanoid would save people having to type in feral -human -humanoid to help narrow down this search as they could just type in feral -humanoid.

It would also help with people who only want to see furries, and don't want to see elves or dwarves or mermaids or gobbuns OR humans, since they wouldn't have to type in -human on top of that.

Sparkmane said:
Implicating human → humanoid
Link to implication

Reason:

If humans aren't humanoid, what is?

I made another post about getting rid of the anthro tag & the only concern with that is it would make it impossible to search for any pictures of all-male ferals with no furries in the background. Implicating human with humanoid would save people having to type in feral -human -humanoid to help narrow down this search as they could just type in feral -humanoid.

It would also help with people who only want to see furries, and don't want to see elves or dwarves or mermaids or gobbuns OR humans, since they wouldn't have to type in -human on top of that.

-1. Humanoid in itself by definition is "alike to humans but NOT human". Humans inspire humanoids because they are human-like creatures.

Also not to mention there are humanoids that fall under "furry enough" for people, such as animal humanoids, that this could accidentally filter out for people who would want to not avoid them.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
-1. Humanoid in itself by definition is "alike to humans but NOT human". Humans inspire humanoids because they are human-like creatures.

Also not to mention there are humanoids that fall under "furry enough" for people, such as animal humanoids, that this could accidentally filter out for people who would want to not avoid them.

Humans are classified as 'humanoid' in D&D, and people shouldn't be tagging catgirls as human.

Also, since human is implying humanoid, and not the other away around, you can still filter out humans without filtering out other humanoids - just like you can filter out elves and goblins and such without filtering out 'humanoid', even though these tags all imply it.

+1

what d&d classifies humans as has literally nothing to do with this. human and humanoid tags have two different purposes and they do not overlap. form tags do not overlap. there is supposed to be one form tag per character and thats it.

Eggplant said:
what d&d classifies humans as has literally nothing to do with this. human and humanoid tags have two different purposes and they do not overlap. form tags do not overlap. there is supposed to be one form tag per character and thats it.

Not to mention what this site considers human is what matters here over D&D's personal, subjective rules

Some D&D races are just humans but with, say, blue colored skin. This site, however, DOES consider them human and irrelevant.

Denied.
Humans are humanoid, but humanoid was intentionally not implicated to human because if people want to see humans, they will search "human", if they want to see humanoids(everything other than human), they will search "humanoid".