Implicating zero_pictured → not_furry
Link to implication

Reason:

By definition pics with no characters are not furry pics. See not_furry.

EDIT: The tag implication zero_pictured -> not_furry (forum #207257) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

-1. I feel that Not Furry should be when there are characters in the image but they aren't furry. I know that as it's written right now, it should be included, but I'd rather find images that actually contain characters when I search for that.

I guess I could always just do not_furry -zero_pictured but since zero pictured would already tell you there's not going to be even a furry, is it necessary?

I don't think many users are going to search for not_furry. If they don't want to see furry pics, they're on the wrong site. If they want to see a certain character who is not_furry, they'll just search for that character.

The purpose of the not_furry tag is more for blacklisting, so I think we should stick to the most correct interpretation, which includes zero_pictured posts.

leomole said:
I don't think many users are going to search for not_furry. If they don't want to see furry pics, they're on the wrong site. If they want to see a certain character who is not_furry, they'll just search for that character.

The purpose of the not_furry tag is more for blacklisting, so I think we should stick to the most correct interpretation, which includes zero_pictured posts.

not many people are going search for humanoid, mammal, *color*_eyes, eta... but we still have them.
Might be clear that e621 is not strictly a furry only site there is no absolute ban on human only art and media as other places like sofurry do, its just not advised and is held at a higher standard so as to prevent the site from being flooded... as for searches wouldnt be too sure about that... there is certainly the following here that likes seeing anthros but also likes see the pure human every once and awhile and dont feel like making a account on another site or accessing a suspicious website to see it.
Adding that again:
-zero_pictured implies that there are no characters at all.
-not_furry implies that there are characters present in image.

Ruku said:
there is no absolute ban on human only art and media

There is a de facto ban on human-only pics. See forum #206554 ("Human-only content is only one of quite a few things we no longer really allow"), forum #202651 ("humans (and humanized) are treated as irrelevant unless there's something else furry-related about image") or the original announcement forum #146158.

Ruku said:
not_furry implies that there are characters present in image.

That's not true, as I pointed out, the not_furry page specifically includes zero_pictured by definition. That's why I started this forum.

leomole said:
There is a de facto ban on human-only pics. See forum #206554 ("Human-only content is only one of quite a few things we no longer really allow"), forum #202651 ("humans (and humanized) are treated as irrelevant unless there's something else furry-related about image"), or the original announcement forum #146158.

keyword relevance, please reread the threads you linked to. human only images have and still do get posted and approved fairly regularly but as pointed out before are held to a higher standard. Might add not just images in relation to comics or sequences that overall do include furries, but one offs as well.

That's not true, as I pointed out, the not_furry page specifically includes zero_pictured by definition. That's why I started this forum.

Also please reread the not_furry wiki. it is said there that zero_pictured can only apply to illustrations of a empty background or non-living objects; zero_pictured can also be non_furry but non_furry cannot be zero_pictured.

I think these are furry.
post #101161 post #41442 post #7027

ZaSigma4 said:
I think these are furry.
post #101161 post #41442 post #7027

Fur culture maybe. But no. Theyre definitely not_furry.

GDelscribe said:
Fur culture maybe. But no. Theyre definitely not_furry.

I'd prefer wiki's definition.

ZaSigma4 said:
I'd prefer wiki's definition.

The wiki outright says things like that should be tagged with not_furry.

"*zero_pictured - A pretty landscape, a toaster, a car"

Doesn't seem any wiki has any thing to say about such things but I would still consider them furry as they are furry related paraphinilia, first 2 would be zero_pictured for not containing any characters, while the 3rd does it would seem thru pokémon characters present in the image.

copy pasta

This uses the term furry in a loose sense,

Furry:

• zero_pictured that are part of larger furry comics are usually considered furry for convenience.

Genjar said:
Furry refers to the fandom.

forum #203540

GDelscribe said:
The wiki outright says things like that should be tagged with not_furry.

"*zero_pictured - A pretty landscape, a toaster, a car"

And I'm saying we should change that so that Zero Pictures is separate. If a person wants to blacklist zero_pictured alongside not_furry, they can blacklist both.

Army of the Damned, arise!
Necromancing aside, I'm on the side of having zero_pictured imply not_furry. By definition, a post that contains zero creatures will also contain zero furry creatures, which would mean it's not furry...

At the risk of dragging an argument from another thread into this one, should zero_pictured also apply if the post has ambient creatures? zero_pictured ambient_* gives a few results.

siral_exan said:
Army of the Damned, arise!
Necromancing aside, I'm on the side of having zero_pictured imply not_furry. By definition, a post that contains zero creatures will also contain zero furry creatures, which would mean it's not furry...

Oh hey, I can cast my -1 as an actual thing now.
I still want to actually find characters when I search for not_furry. I don't want to find landscapes.
Plus:

zasigma4 said:
I think these are furry.
post #101161 post #41442 post #7027

furrin_gok said:
Oh hey, I can cast my -1 as an actual thing now.
I still want to actually find characters when I search for not_furry. I don't want to find landscapes.
Plus:

You mean to tell me that if you just search for not_furry, you won't find characters there? Also, can you cite recent examples of posts that you would consider furry and would be tagged zero_pictured, I doubt the former two would be approved nowadays...

siral_exan said:
You mean to tell me that if you just search for not_furry, you won't find characters there?

I'm saying I should. If I do, it's working right. It should stay that way.

Also, can you cite recent examples of posts that you would consider furry and would be tagged zero_pictured, I doubt the former two would be approved nowadays...

Those pictures exist. They aren't about to be removed, because that would be a retroactive rule enforcement. The implication going through would cause those three to also be tagged as not_furry.
As for a recent example? post #2724205. Comics get tagged with multiple count tags based on each panel. The final panel has no characters at all, but not_furry is not a count tag, it applies to the entire image. post #2691739 isn't a comic image, but it features a sketch of a furry in a way that doesn't quite count as a character.

furrin_gok said:
I'm saying I should. If I do, it's working right. It should stay that way.
Those pictures exist. They aren't about to be removed, because that would be a retroactive rule enforcement. The implication going through would cause those three to also be tagged as not_furry.
As for a recent example? post #2724205. Comics get tagged with multiple count tags based on each panel. The final panel has no characters at all, but not_furry is not a count tag, it applies to the entire image. post #2691739 isn't a comic image, but it features a sketch of a furry in a way that doesn't quite count as a character.

Y'see, that last statement is helpful, but you initially presented an opinion for your argument. You will still find characters if you search for not_furry even if zero_pictured implies it, it won't magically delete all those posts that only contain humans and humanoids (et cetera).

However, zero_pictured isn't a "count tag" (at least by reading the wiki) in the traditional sense, it's an absolute. Either there are characters or there are not in the post, there is no in-between. Unless this definition has changed or should change, that comic shouldn't be tagged zero pictured because there absolutely is at least one character present.

siral_exan said:
Y'see, that last statement is helpful, but you initially presented an opinion for your argument. You will still find characters if you search for not_furry even if zero_pictured implies it, it won't magically delete all those posts that only contain humans and humanoids (et cetera).

Opinion goes a long way into how tags work. I may just be one great noisy crybaby, or perhaps there are others who would share my opinion when they read it. Some things need to be set in stone, but other things not so much.

However, zero_pictured isn't a "count tag" (at least by reading the wiki) in the traditional sense, it's an absolute. Either there are characters or there are not in the post, there is no in-between. Unless this definition has changed or should change, that comic shouldn't be tagged zero pictured because there absolutely is at least one character present.

Huh, I've been using it for comics which have a panel displaying something like that. How would you tag a panel with no characters in it otherwise?

furrin_gok said:
Opinion goes a long way into how tags work. I may just be one great noisy crybaby, or perhaps there are others who would share my opinion when they read it. Some things need to be set in stone, but other things not so much.
Huh, I've been using it for comics which have a panel displaying something like that. How would you tag a panel with no characters in it otherwise?

You wouldn't in this case. However, you can definitely suggest to change the tag, or ask for a new one, I'm not gonna stop you. Though I may make it sound like it is, the wikis for tags aren't the law, the tags are also meant to be intuitive or not difficult to understand; the wikis are meant to be accurate, though, and if I read out loud "zero pictured" people would probably expect nothing in the image...

So yea. As it currently is, zero_pictured would mean not_furry because it means "no characters at all" right now. If it's changed, then I can revise my opinion accordingly, otherwise the implication would be correct.

furrin_gok said:
Huh, I've been using it for comics which have a panel displaying something like that. How would you tag a panel with no characters in it otherwise?

You can't, just like you can't tag a panel with one character (solo) when the page has two or more. A comic page like this, for example, the first panel only has three characters visible (trio) and panels two and three has only two characters visible (duo), but all together, there's four separate characters (group) in the image even though they don't all appear "at once". Tagging duo, trio, and group wouldn't make sense, since the tag doesn't indicate it's referencing a portion of the image or the image as a whole. Some comics even play loose with panel borders, where it can be unclear if a character is "in" a panel or not.

watsit said:
Tagging duo, trio, and group wouldn't make sense, since the tag doesn't indicate it's referencing a portion of the image or the image as a whole. Some comics even play loose with panel borders, where it can be unclear if a character is "in" a panel or not.

This makes it sound more necessary to include some sort of "in panel" tag for grouping. You'd tag the total number of characters present, up to the total of group of course, and then tag when the exceptions occur in a panel, IE if a three panel comic has 1 character, two characters, and finally 5, it would be tagged (for example) solo_in_panel + duo_in_panel and group. Maybe make these in the lore category...

siral_exan said:
This makes it sound more necessary to include some sort of "in panel" tag for grouping. You'd tag the total number of characters present, up to the total of group of course, and then tag when the exceptions occur in a panel, IE if a three panel comic has 1 character, two characters, and finally 5, it would be tagged (for example) solo_in_panel + duo_in_panel and group. Maybe make these in the lore category...

I have a feeling most people wouldn't bother counting and tagging the number of characters that appear in each panel, making the tags underutilized and not useful. And "in panel" would be a bit of a misnomer since defined panels are optional.

furrin_gok said:
As for a recent example? post #2724205.

Yeah, that recent example is a mistag. zero_pictured only applies if there are no characters whatsoever in the entire post. The wiki should be clearer about it... Also, the last panel is part of the same scene, so it wouldn't be zero pictured regardless, as the comic character counts are tagged by the scene instead of by the panel.

I think "not furry" should be for characters which are non-furry, rather than pictures lacking furries. Although I understand that the wiki would need to be changed if we went with that definition.

-1.

Taking zero_pictured's wiki definition into account, it would be a post without any characters but tend to be from a larger set like a comic.

If a comic page were to feature just an XL Bad_Dragon dildo as an entire page-spread for comedic purposes, it would classify as being zero_pictured but definitely NOT not_furry.

As per not_furry's wiki definition, it should be for "posts that cannot be considered even remotely furry."
If a dragon dildo is not considered furry, I don't know what is.

watsit said:
You can't, just like you can't tag a panel with one character (solo) when the page has two or more. A comic page like this, for example, the first panel only has three characters visible (trio) and panels two and three has only two characters visible (duo), but all together, there's four separate characters (group) in the image even though they don't all appear "at once". Tagging duo, trio, and group wouldn't make sense, since the tag doesn't indicate it's referencing a portion of the image or the image as a whole. Some comics even play loose with panel borders, where it can be unclear if a character is "in" a panel or not.

I definitely remember reading somewhere that multiple_scenes get tagged with each one relevant. Did things change since that?

siral_exan said:
This makes it sound more necessary to include some sort of "in panel" tag for grouping. You'd tag the total number of characters present, up to the total of group of course, and then tag when the exceptions occur in a panel, IE if a three panel comic has 1 character, two characters, and finally 5, it would be tagged (for example) solo_in_panel + duo_in_panel and group. Maybe make these in the lore category...

That may be the better option. zero_in_panel would cover those panels where there would otherwise be zero_pictured.

watsit said:
I have a feeling most people wouldn't bother counting and tagging the number of characters that appear in each panel, making the tags underutilized and not useful. And "in panel" would be a bit of a misnomer since defined panels are optional.

Even if it did have panel borders, you can sometimes get a scenario like the upper right, where a character shows up multiple times in the same panel as they look around for something. motion_clones perhaps?
A lot of people wouldn't bother with the panel tags, but that applies to most tags to begin with. Plenty of people tag young and skip tagging cub or child. Sex positions, genders, genitals, some people just tag the bare minimum and leave it.

furrin_gok said:
I definitely remember reading somewhere that multiple_scenes get tagged with each one relevant. Did things change since that?

I wasn't around for that conversation, so I wouldn't know. But as far as I'm concerned, something like post #2733698 shouldn't be tagged solo even though only one character appears in a given panel, because there's clearly two distinct characters (duo) present in the image. A single post shouldn't have both solo and duo outside of multiple images (not a comic sequence as in post #2724205), so only one can be applicable. Solo's wiki echoes this:

Each image in multi-image posts is tagged separately, which means that it's possible (for instance) to have both solo and duo tags on the same post.
...
Comic pages are tagged cumulatively by scene. For instance, two characters talking to each other is tagged as duo, not solo, even if drawn in separate panels.

Multiple images is specifically for unrelated images in one post, whereas multiple scenes is specifically related images.

furrin_gok said:
A lot of people wouldn't bother with the panel tags, but that applies to most tags to begin with. Plenty of people tag young and skip tagging cub or child. Sex positions, genders, genitals, some people just tag the bare minimum and leave it.

Sure, but most of that gets filled in relatively soon afterward by others, and there's implications set up to help with more tags. Some posts may still go without them, but they're used very often. But something like solo_in_panel can't be implicated by anything, and I don't think most people would bother counting and tagging the number of characters per panel, so would get used far less. I don't see the information as particularly useful, either.