The bulk update request #4229 has been rejected.

create implication human_focus (16963) -> not_furry_focus (17877)

Reason: Humans and humanoids are not furry, so any posts where they're the focal point are not furry focused.

EDIT: The bulk update request #4229 (forum #358398) has been rejected by @Lafcadio.

human_focus makes sense, not too sure about humanoid. An animal_humanoid is a subclass of humanoid but it still counts as furry.

faucet said:
human_focus makes sense, not too sure about humanoid. An animal_humanoid is a subclass of humanoid but it still counts as furry.

Fair. Removed.

You're the third janitor to suggest human_focus -> not_furry_focus (topic #25705, topic #27370). The reasoning against it is that a human_focus post could be not_furry_focus or not_furry, and these tags aren't used together. Considering how non-obvious this is, even to proficient users, maybe something needs to be changed.

The bulk update request #4229 (forum #358398) has been rejected by @Lafcadio.

Oops, yeah, that was very easy to overlook.

I was assuming it would be human_focus with furry character(s) in the background and human_focus + not_furry_focus would fit - but it could just as easily have background characters that were also non-furry (elves, orcs, etc) but still site relevant, so human_focus + not_furry would be the correct choice in that case.

In an ideal world human_focus -not_furry -not_furry_focus should have 0 results and it's currently returning 1158, so that could be a tag project for somebody who wants it. Just glancing over the results is showing plenty of things that shouldn't even be tagged with human_focus either, like post #3713445 or post #3660266 where the furry character has just as much focus as the human.