Topic: Should image only features human wearing fursuit (without transfur) be tagged as not_furry?

Posted under General

Dripen Arn

Member

an excerpt e6's wiki article for the not_furry tag:

Non-furry:

human characters are the most obvious.

Bold - in all cases

even if they're in a fursuit; humans alone should be tagged as not_furry. and if an artwork tagged not_furry exists in a vacuum (i.e. gives no context to other posts that have furry characters in them e.g. a comic series) then they shouldn't even be allowed on this site as far as i'm aware

watchdog22

Member

dripen_arn said:
an excerpt e6's wiki article for the not_furry tag:

even if they're in a fursuit; humans alone should be tagged as not_furry. and if an artwork tagged not_furry exists in a vacuum (i.e. gives no context to other posts that have furry characters in them e.g. a comic series) then they shouldn't even be allowed on this site as far as i'm aware

what if the artist said it was a human wearing a mask in the source but not obviously seen in the image? post #3666997
I guess due to TWYS so it shouldn't tag as not_furry?

DubsTheFox

Janitor

watchdog22 said:
what if the artist said it was a human wearing a mask in the source but not obviously seen in the image? post #3666997
I guess due to TWYS so it shouldn't tag as not_furry?

If you can't see it, don't tag it. Parent posts, descriptions and source information do not affect the tagging. Exceptions are characters and lore tags. This doesn't look like a human, therefore human_only wouldn't fit.

  • 1