I have a bit of confusion as im seeing multiple deletions in regard to human'oids' now instead of just humans. particularly marvin and the martian queen.... did i miss some bit of lore saying they WERE human or something? or was this a deletion due to personal preferences/biases?

skin color and lack of facial features does not make a character non-human by our relevance standards. otherwise the_simpsons characters and post containing faceless anon-type human characters would be allowed.

a character must show at least one added non-human body feature to be considered relevant.

ok...now im a little confused...cause there's quite a LOT of the_simpsons art and anon art.
Even if the argument was that they were with something furry (like a dog) in the image...it feels a little off kilter.

kriasoulstealer said:
ok...now im a little confused...cause there's quite a LOT of the_simpsons art and anon art.
Even if the argument was that they were with something furry (like a dog) in the image...it feels a little off kilter.

That's exactly why. Images with humans are allowed if the image also contains non-human characters. You can even have human-only images if they're part of a larger sequence/comic that contains non-human characters (within reason; obviously a 100 page comic that's all humans except for a small dog that appears in the background of page 57 wouldn't be allowed either). But standalone images that only have what the site considers humans aren't allowed. A species' lore is irrelevant to whether e6 considers something human or not.

kriasoulstealer said:
ok...now im a little confused...cause there's quite a LOT of the_simpsons art and anon art.
Even if the argument was that they were with something furry (like a dog) in the image...it feels a little off kilter.

human are alowed, (obviously they're the most populated specific species tag) posts that contain only humans, however, generally aren't, unless they have a direct relation to other relevant post(s) (pre-tf, comic page, etc.), or they're grandfatered_content.

Interesting... and im just trying to get clarification really not start a debate.
Is there any list or such made up that has things defined as 'human-only'? or is it more 'at the moderators discretion' kind of thing? seriously curious is all cause i see a lot of human only stuff in that case.

kriasoulstealer said:
Is there any list or such made up that has things defined as 'human-only'? or is it more 'at the moderators discretion' kind of thing? seriously curious is all cause i see a lot of human only stuff in that case.

You can't really define a list like that, since it's not based on specific characters or species. It depends on how they appear. Link for example, may or may not be considered human depending if his elf ears are visible (images of him can be deleted based solely on his ears being obscured). Gerudo may or may not be considered human depending if they're drawn with pointy ears or regular human-like ears.

watsit said:
You can't really define a list like that, since it's not based on specific characters or species. It depends on how they appear. Link for example, may or may not be considered human depending if his elf ears are visible (images of him can be deleted based solely on his ears being obscured). Gerudo may or may not be considered human depending if they're drawn with pointy ears or regular human-like ears.

Hmm...that's a good point... honestly... its damned sticky... but that response does entail it is at moderators discretion at least.
i wonder...what the definition would become if humans started changing in the future...like modifications DNA wise and such, technically..you'd still be human...right? even with a tail.
Though i suppose that does support the Kemonomimi thing in general..its not 'just' human past that point...

sipothac said:
human are alowed, (obviously they're the most populated specific species tag) posts that contain only humans, however, generally aren't, unless they have a direct relation to other relevant post(s) (pre-tf, comic page, etc.), or they're grandfatered_content.

grandfathered_content

sipothac said:
skin color and lack of facial features does not make a character non-human by our relevance standards. otherwise the_simpsons characters and post containing faceless anon-type human characters would be allowed.

a character must show at least one added non-human body feature to be considered relevant.

These definitions above would be good to have on pages human and human_only. Perhaps a link to https://e621.net/help/uploading_guidelines#humans suffices, but "visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human" there should be updated to "visible, anatomical additive deviations from the standard human", because otherwise, for example exactly Marvin the Martian is a humanoid alien, whose anatomical deviations are lack of nose, ears or facial features, which I do understand also often apply for chibi-style human characters.

Raises some interesting questions about how janky the proportions on a gray alien has to be for it to not be "human", if lack of features doesn't apply, given the skintone alone wouldn't make them non-human.

urielfrys said:
These definitions above would be good to have on pages human and human_only. Perhaps a link to https://e621.net/help/uploading_guidelines#humans suffices, but "visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human" there should be updated to "visible, anatomical additive deviations from the standard human", because otherwise, for example exactly Marvin the Martian is a humanoid alien, whose anatomical deviations are lack of nose, ears or facial features, which I do understand also often apply for chibi-style human characters.

The annoying grey line in the sand of TWYS and intent. It's why we have to tag his name, and hope no one thinks to make more of his species. I mean, it's several features together, and an unusual profile, but in the end... technically human I guess. :(