Topic: Beakless Toy Chica

Hello. I have a question:
Since when has Beakless Toy Chica been tagged as Animal Humanoid?
Examples: post #5893032, post #5821879, post #5805110, post #6066243…
I thought that the beakless version of an anthro chicken animatronic was still an anthro…

if i completely remove the context of the character from my mind, this registers as a humanoid to me yeah

bitez said:
if i completely remove the context of the character from my mind, this registers as a humanoid to me yeah

How so? It is an anthropomorphic chicken animatronic. An animal_humanoid, they would just be a human with animal ears, tail, sometimes nose. To quote the wiki:

Characters that retain human appearance but possesses animalistic traits like the ears, tail, and sometimes paws or nose, of an animal. Here on e621, this meaning has been extended to apply to nearly all characters with minor animal characteristics (e.g., ears, tail, nose, penis, winged_arms, etc.) who otherwise appear entirely human.

This tag should not be used for anthro characters. Use the tagging guideline below for a better detail.

If a character has an head resembling an animal's head, and their torso doesn't contrast in some significant way from the head down, it should be tagged anthro instead. The animal_head tag should be used if the depiction of an animal head is paired with a torso that contrasts, and appears entirely human in appearance.

Toy Chica's body is not a human body…

cow_of_fire said:
How so? It is an anthropomorphic chicken animatronic. An animal_humanoid, they would just be a human with animal ears, tail, sometimes nose. [...]

Toy Chica's body is not a human body…

"Circle head" type characters like a beakless Toy Chica are typically considered humanoid (or even occasionally human enough to be grounds for deletion), and skin color doesn't count for non-humanoid. Toy Chica without the beak often looks like a living emoji on a yellow human's body, especially with how fanartists draw her.
post #5893032 post #5805110 post #6066243 post #5821879
These images don't have any anthro traits outside of the feathers on top of the head. No claws, no body feathers or feather texture, no tail. It's a humanoid robot with breasts.

moonlit-comet said:
…
These images don't have any anthro traits outside of the feathers on top of the head. No claws, no body feathers or feather texture, no tail. It's a humanoid robot with breasts.

Except they do. Toy_Chica_(fnaf) is not a humanoid, whatsoever. She is a chicken animatronic, with or without beak, that qualifies as an anthro. There is nothing humanoid about her!

cow_of_fire said:
Except they do. Toy_Chica_(fnaf) is not a humanoid, whatsoever. She is a chicken animatronic, with or without beak, that qualifies as an anthro. There is nothing humanoid about her!

TWYS. You've been here since 2016, you should know what it means. To me, those pictures don't look like anthros either. So, no need for an anthro tag.

cow_of_fire said:
Except they do. Toy_Chica_(fnaf) is not a humanoid, whatsoever. She is a chicken animatronic, with or without beak, that qualifies as an anthro. There is nothing humanoid about her!

her beak is the only thing that makes her look at all animalistic. without it she just looks like a generic yellow thing.

dba_afish said:
her beak is the only thing that makes her look at all animalistic. without it she just looks like a generic yellow thing.

That wouldn't really affect her being anthro vs humanoid though, since it's just a facial feature and doesn't affect her body and limbs at all. If her body is simply human-like, and her head is the only thing animal-like, then animal_head would apply which implies animal_humanoid/humanoid. A beak doesn't make a character anthro, so if the only difference between normal toy chica and beakless toy chica is the (lack of) beak, they both should be tagged the same regarding humanoid vs anthro.

watsit said:
That wouldn't really affect her being anthro vs humanoid though, since it's just a facial feature and doesn't affect her body and limbs at all. If her body is simply human-like, and her head is the only thing animal-like, then animal_head would apply which implies animal_humanoid/humanoid. A beak doesn't make a character anthro, so if the only difference between normal toy chica and beakless toy chica is the (lack of) beak, they both should be tagged the same regarding humanoid vs anthro.

ehh, it depends. if it's just like, an extremely abstracted form (like a stick_figure, for example) you need fewer elements to cross the line from one to the other, I think characters like Toy Chica fall under this.

cow_of_fire said:
Except they do. Toy_Chica_(fnaf) is not a humanoid, whatsoever. She is a chicken animatronic, with or without beak, that qualifies as an anthro. There is nothing humanoid about her!

Look at it from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't know or care about the lore. All this someone has is what Toy Chica looks like. There is no beak. The tail is hidden. Those might be feathers on her head or just hair. From a TWYS standpoint, she doesn't look like an anthro chicken. She looks like a humanoid.

In some depictions, she might even pass for a human (yellow skin and lack of nose don't count as nonhuman as funky colors don't count (see the Simpsons) and some art styles will show humans without noses). That means her nonhuman traits are limited to the segmentation of her body and her tail. If the latter isn't visible and the former little more than lines on the body, then she is likely to get deleted. The 3D pictures are often more convincing as nonhuman than traditional pictures.

This means posts like post #5821879 will more than likely get the axe once they're discovered. (Users with unlimited uploads can bypass getting their posts vetted so sometimes these things slip through.)

clawstripe said:
…
This means posts like post #5821879 will more than likely get the axe once they're discovered. (Users with unlimited uploads can bypass getting their posts vetted so sometimes these things slip through.)

I am confused. Does that mean the majority of beakless Toy Chica will be deleted for being too human and not enough furry, bypassing the animal_humanoid all together?
I do not understand!

cow_of_fire said:
I am confused. Does that mean the majority of beakless Toy Chica will be deleted for being too human and not enough furry, bypassing the animal_humanoid all together?
I do not understand!

Depictions which show a beakless toy chica as an actual robot, with visible seams and joints, are possibly relevant via robot_humanoid- characters like jenny_wakeman, which have similar body types with a circular head, are often approved by virtue of visibly being robots, though many are also deleted by virtue of still being too human. It seems to be a mixed bag.

If a beakless toy chica is depicted with scaled feet and talons, it will likely be relevant:
post #5994733

If it has feathers or a tail, it is likely relevant:
post #5441647 post #5151054

The main issue arises when all that is visible in the image - ie tag what you see - is a yellow, featherless, human-like body with a stylized human-like face attached to it. Without any of these animal or robot features it's not going to look like an anthro, or even an animal humanoid. "Look" is the heavy lifter here. Toy Chica IS an anthro chicken - but if the art doesn't look it, then you can't say she's anthro in the image, and can't really use that as weight to imply it's site relevant.

Looking through the tag, imo most images of her that are currently up are probably fine and safe from deletion [though take that with a grain of salt, I'm not staff]. They have some animal trait - chicken feet, feathers, etc, and/or a robot trait that makes it a robot_humanoid.

cow_of_fire said:
I am confused. Does that mean the majority of beakless Toy Chica will be deleted for being too human and not enough furry, bypassing the animal_humanoid all together?
I do not understand!

Moonlit-Comet is correct. You don't have anything to fear. We have no plans or desire to put Toy Chica on the chopping block.

Problematic Toy Chica posts that need to be deleted are actually a small minority. Most of her pictures visible here have been approved by a Janitor, so they're good. Users with unlimited uploads have proven themselves to have good judgement in things to upload, so most of the Toy Chicas they upload will be good. But nobody's perfect and the occasional oops can happen, especially if one gets into an uploading or approving zone but the Toy Chica is borderline enough that we should have stopped to think about it for a bit.