create implication animal_ear_fluff -> animal_ears

BUR #8183 has been rejected.

create implication animal_ear_fluff -> animal_ears

Can there be animal ear fluff without animal ears? I couldn't find anything legitimately missing animal ears when searching animal_ear_fluff -animal_ears.

Another suggestion would be to clarify the wiki of animal hood. It is defined by "featuring fake animal ears", which might not be true for every hood and especially not for bird hood, duck hood, frog hood, penguin hood and shark hood. Nevertheless I feel like a post with an animal hood featuring ears should also be tagged with fake animal ears and the type of animal ears (e.g. cat ears, fox ears, ...).

Depends on if we want to tag animal ears on actual animals.

animal ears is intended for characters. From the definition of solo I wouldn't consider unnamed animals as characters. When it comes to named animals or anthropomorphic characters I would rather not have the tag animal ears applied to them, unless their ears are uncommon or special. In general I don't see the need to use animal_ear_fluff to describe the ears of animals or non-human creatures that have animal ears by default either.

0F5654E9AC9AB9AAD5B9 said:

In general I don't see the need to use animal_ear_fluff to describe the ears of animals or non-human creatures that have animal ears by default either.

Why not? Not all animals are gonna be drawn realistically enough to have animal ear fluff so it's good to tag it when it appears.

0F5654E9AC9AB9AAD5B9 said:

I couldn't find anything legitimately missing animal ears when searching animal_ear_fluff -animal_ears.

A brief stroll through that search revealed lots of fennekin and braixen posts, which probably shouldn't be tagged animal_ears. Most taggers follow an unspoken rule against tagging animal ears on the animals they belong on, even if there's no such rule explicitly stated in the wiki. But I'm strongly opposed to removing animal_ear_fluff from these posts; the fluff on images like post #4149090 is simply too significant to leave untagged. I mean, it's one of the creature's most defining features.

In my opinion a tag is most helpful if it describes something specific and is not applicable for completely different things. Like the tail tag animal ears is not supposed to be applied to animals. The wiki states that animal ear fluff is the fluff of animal ears which implies it is not applicable to animals either. I like the idea because it eases the search for specific pictures. Having to search animal_ears animal_ear_fluff uses two of your precious search tags and excludes all those wrongly tagged pictures in animal_ear_fluff -animal_ears. There are very view tags to describe animals and if the demand exists, I'd prefer to have a different tag for their ears.

iridescent_slime said:

A brief stroll through that search revealed lots of fennekin and braixen posts, which probably shouldn't be tagged animal_ears.

It may be against my intention of having that tag exclusively for animal girls, but fennekin and braixen are no animals and may be tagged animal ears or tail.
But I really don't want to open that box, because if the animal focus is removed from pokemon it will be even harder to filter them.

Sorry, I accidentally replied to myself instead of editing the post. Please ignore this post.

iridescent_slime said:

But I'm strongly opposed to removing animal_ear_fluff from these posts; the fluff on images like post #4149090 is simply too significant to leave untagged. I mean, it's one of the creature's most defining features.

Agreed. This kind of fluff is hardly default for regular animals/creatures.

iridescent_slime said:

A brief stroll through that search revealed lots of fennekin and braixen posts, which probably shouldn't be tagged animal_ears.

Fennekin definitely shouldn't, but Braixen's design is a humanoid furry, which is fine.

The bulk update request #8183 (forum #201875) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

animal ear fluff is simply a tag for the protruding fluff inside certain animal ears. Nobody ever said that this does not apply to pictures of animals.

nonamethanks said:

animal ear fluff is simply a tag for the protruding fluff inside certain animal ears. Nobody ever said that this does not apply to pictures of animals.

The wiki page definitely says so right now: "A distinct soft-looking fuzz that protrudes from the inside of animal ears."