I'm working on adding non_furry to posts where appropriate. I've run into a few questions and I'm planning to ask about them here as they come up. The first is the species asura. Is that species as typically drawn not_furry or possibly anthro? It's not an anthropomorphized version of any particular animal or category of animal, but depending on how it's drawn it's face/nose/snout is sort of a middle ground between anthro-like and humanoid.

Examples:
post #1318320
NSFW Examples:
post #1470803
post #1879205
post #2588838

Without knowing any context, those look pretty dang furry to me.

If it's covered in fur, it's furry.

votp said:
If it's covered in fur, it's furry.

does this mean my beanbag chair is a furry 😱

100% not_furry.

votp said:
If it's covered in fur, it's furry.

But she's not covered in fur. She's got a cat's nose and... horse ears? She's otherwise just covered in grey skin. Asura look like some kind of goblin.

Also, I keep on thinking of Asura the god from Asura's Wrath These should maybe be mass updated to asura_(guild_wars).

furrin_gok said:
She's got a cat's nose and... horse ears? She's otherwise just covered in grey skin. Asura look like some kind of goblin.

Even if you want to argue she has skin and not fur (personally I disagree), the nose, ears and claws would still make her an animal humanoid and therefore furry.

strikerman said:
Even if you want to argue she has skin and not fur (personally I disagree), the nose, ears and claws would still make her an animal humanoid and therefore furry.

A weird nose alone wouldn't do it, but if you consider those to be horse ears, then I suppose you could make the argument. Those are not "Animal claws" to me though.
post #2790461 post #2790044 post #2764528
Asura don't always have horse-colored ears, these are the sorts of images I was looking at when I was saying humanoid. I was looking at post #258838 when I said horse ears. The other tree images TittyBitty linked are absolutely not furry.

The way i see it they they don't have fur and they have ears+claws+snout which are specifically designed not to evoke any particular animal, but are vaguely animal-like. IMO the strongest argument against not_furry is the snout/head shape. Because they don't have humanlike facial features they do read at first impression as somewhat anthro.

I think not_furry should be used conservatively on edge cases. post #1318320 doesn't show any features from any particular animal, but the nose could be called animal like.

votp said:
If it's covered in fur, it's furry.

LOL, then I'm unironically furry. *rubs beard*

leomole said:
I think not_furry should be used conservatively on edge cases. post #1318320 doesn't show any features from any particular animal, but the nose could be called animal like.

I don't think a nose alone should count as furry. Maybe if it was a beak, but a snout or rabbit or pig nose doesn't seem furry.

tittybitty said:
I'm working on adding non_furry to posts where appropriate. I've run into a few questions and I'm planning to ask about them here as they come up. The first is the species asura. Is that species as typically drawn not_furry or possibly anthro? It's not an anthropomorphized version of any particular animal or category of animal, but depending on how it's drawn it's face/nose/snout is sort of a middle ground between anthro-like and humanoid.

Examples:
post #1318320
NSFW Examples:
post #1470803
post #1879205
post #2588838

Not having a clear basis for species shouldn't disqualify a creature's anthro status on its own, especially if it belongs a creator's original species.

votp said:
If it's covered in fur, it's furry.

Hairless cat: Mr. human, I don't feel so good...

Well, looks like there isn't a strong consensus. Let's try another one. not_furry includes "human-like aliens, angels, demons, monsters". My question is about demons. How many animal parts do they need to have before they are considered furry rather than not furry. Where would you draw the line between not_furry and animal_humanoid?

horns: post #2818966
little stylized wings: post #2695940
stylized hooves: post #2767978
larger wings: post #2749346
large wings + hooves with fur: post #1984396
large wings + furred lower body: post #1744345

tittybitty said:
Well, looks like there isn't a strong consensus. Let's try another one. not_furry includes "human-like aliens, angels, demons, monsters". My question is about demons. How many animal parts do they need to have before they are considered furry rather than not furry. Where would you draw the line between not_furry and animal_humanoid?

horns: post #2818966
little stylized wings: post #2695940
stylized hooves: post #2767978
larger wings: post #2749346
large wings + hooves with fur: post #1984396
large wings + furred lower body: post #1744345

I could give "Hooves with fur" a pass, but anything above that is humanoid. I'd say that the furred lower half is furry, though there are some half-furred Satyrs that are marked as "Not Furry": post #1662182