Implicating human_focus → human
Link to implication

Reason:

To exist a focalised human is necessary to exist an human.

Is human_focus restricted solely to humans? I've seen it being used for elves as well.

post #186201

BlueDingo said:
Is human_focus restricted solely to humans? I've seen it being used for elves as well.

post #186201

it obviously should not be used on other than humans. its not human focus if there is no humans in the image

BlueDingo said:
Is human_focus restricted solely to humans? I've seen it being used for elves as well.

post #186201

Maybe we should have a humanoid_focus?

Furrin_Gok said:
Maybe we should have a humanoid_focus?

That could be a problem. Animal humanoids and pokemon like gardevoir (which are both site relevant) would qualify for that tag when the purpose of the human_focus tag is to point out images where the focus is on something not site relevant (ie. humans). While elves aren't exactly site relevant either on the count of them basically behind humans with pointy ears, there's no easy to include them in the tag without stretching the definition of "human" which won't go down well.

BlueDingo said:
That could be a problem. Animal humanoids and pokemon like gardevoir (which are both site relevant) would qualify for that tag when the purpose of the human_focus tag is to point out images where the focus is on something not site relevant (ie. humans). While elves aren't exactly site relevant either on the count of them basically behind humans with pointy ears, there's no easy to include them in the tag without stretching the definition of "human" which won't go down well.

how exactly gardevoir is more site relevant than an elf? its just a humanoid just like an elf is

Mutisija said:
how exactly gardevoir is more site relevant than an elf? its just a humanoid just like an elf is

Because gardevoir are pokemon that barely resembles the human form while elves (or at least the Tolkien-style ones) resemble humans in almost every way, the only major visual difference being the ears.

BlueDingo said:
Because garevoir are pokemon that barely resembles the human form while elves (or at least the Tolkien-style ones) resemble humans in almost every way, the only major visual difference being the ears.

gardevoir looks quite literally like cartoony human with odd skin color and face flaps

Mutisija said:
gardevoir looks quite literally like cartoony human with odd skin color and face flaps

And odd-colored hair, stick legs, oversized head, a red thing sticking out of their chest, a "dress" made out of skin... That's a lot of differences.

+1 implication. The mistake was my fault, I didn't notice the ear in post #186201 and tagged it as human_focus. I'll remove the tag.

I think everyone in this thread has made good points. There is good reason to have a humanoid_focus tag, to mark posts that aren't furry focused (I used it once on post #1089863 but changed my mind). But animal_humanoids would get caught too and we don't want that. How about not_furry_focus? That applies to junk like post #186201 but not something like post #716237 and it's consistent with existing definitions of humanoid and not_furry.

Elves and Gardevoir are considered site relevant because they're anatomically different from humans. Neither one is furry though so don't forget to tag them with not_furry.

+1 for not_furry_focus

Sounds awkward but it'll work. +1.

Should we implicate not_furry_focus -> not_furry and/or human_focus -> not_furry_focus?

BlueDingo said:
Sounds awkward but it'll work. +1.

Should we implicate not_furry_focus -> not_furry and/or human_focus -> not_furry_focus?

-1 to not_furry implication, +1 to human_focus -> not_furry_focus.

Not_furry means nothing in the image is furry, whereas not_furry_focus implies that there is something furry that simply isn't the focus.

BlueDingo said:
not_furry_focus -> not_furry

bad. there could be not furry focus image of not furry character having sex with anthro or feral character.

+1 human_focus -> not_furry_focus.

+1 for:

not_furry_focus.
human_focus → not_furry_focus.

Army of the damned, arise!

Necroposting aside, this implication has caused a problem where a completely not_furry post, which had a human_focus, also implied not_furry_focus despite there being no furries.

post #2089992 (sadly deleted, it had two humans and two minuscule pokéballs with faces) had this problem. The implication caused an invalid tag to occur, since the not_furry_focus wiki explicitly states that there is some form of furry creature present in the picture. There were none, so the prior two tags were valid; the lattermost is invalid.

Removing the implication seems to be the best idea, IMO. Similar situations can arise, for example 7 dwarves in the background with 1 human in the foreground, overshadowing them, could have a human_focus yet incorrectly imply not_furry_focus. There would be no furries present... the reverse could also be true, and humanoids can also be not_furry. And since there is no implication of humanoid_focus to not_furry_focus, that hypothetical post would be tagged correctly. So, why does human_focus imply not_furry_focus?

You're right, the wiki contradicted the implication. I went ahead and updated the wiki.

Humans are not furry. It makes perfect sense for human_focus to imply not_furry_focus. human_only implies not_furry for the same reason.

leomole said:
You're right, the wiki contradicted the implication. I went ahead and updated the wiki.

That breaks the existing focus-tag standard, though: x_focus is only tagged if there's something besides x. Human_focus can be either not_furry or not_furry_focus, but not both.

leomole said:
You're right, the wiki contradicted the implication. I went ahead and updated the wiki.

Shouldn't it go the other way around, fixing the implication instead of changing the wiki? I was under the impression that the x_focus tags implies the presence of not-x. Like how solo_focus implies duo or group, and duo_focus implies group (neither solo and solo_focus, or duo and duo_focus, should be used together). Thus with the same logic, male_focus should imply the presence of a female or intersex, and human_focus should imply the presence of a non-human.

Otherwise you may as well make implications for x_only -> x_focus, and not_furry -> not_furry_focus. That would seem to strain the usefulness of the tag to me, though, and leave no tags for when there's a focus on x along with the existence of non-x in the picture.

You're right, I see it now, sorry. I wasn't thinking about how the _focus tags are supposed to be used. I updated the wikis and crossed out the request for this implication in forum #279292.

Can a mod delete the human_focus -> not_furry_focus implication and then remove not_furry_focus from all posts in human_focus not_furry_focus not_furry?

A small number of human_focus posts that are currently missing the not_furry tag will then be left with the not_furry_focus tag instead. Around 100 posts, by my estimates, after the cleanup I just did. I see this as an acceptable margin of error, but I would also understand if the mods choose to remove not_furry_focus from all posts in human_focus not_furry_focus.

I blacklisted every tag that could be considered furry and went through all human_focus posts to tag every not_furry post. It should be safe to simply remove contradictory not_furry_focus tags.

I see no problem with the implication. Someone made a mis-tag and the system slammed on incorrect implications. The tagger is at fault, not the implication.

To reuse Siral example, in a post with Snow White and 7 background dwarves, it would be correct to use the human_focus tag but incorrect to use the not_furry_focus tag because the plain not_furry tag should be used instead. So the human_focus → not_furry_focus implication should be deleted.

leomole said:
To reuse Siral example, in a post with Snow White and 7 background dwarves, it would be correct to use the human_focus tag but incorrect to use the not_furry_focus tag because the plain not_furry tag should be used instead. So the human_focus → not_furry_focus implication should be deleted.

Damn, forgot that not everything site-relevant counts as furry. Well then, implication is incorrect and should be deleted.