Implicating living_plush → animate_inanimate
Link to implication

Reason:

Living plush characters are, as the name says, living toys. Toys are objects, and living plush are alive and objects. Ergo: animate inanimate

Related implications:

• food creature → animate inanimate
• food creature → food
• living inflatable → animate inanimate
• living machine → animate inanimate
• living plush → plushie

Related aliases:

• candy girl → food creature
• living candy → food creature

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

Implications:

• living_plush → animate_inanimate
• living inflatable → animate inanimate
• living plush → plushie

Already suggested at forum #230099.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

Aliases:

• candy girl → food creature
• living candy → food creature

These probably would be better as implications. The popularity of both tags denotes some interest in this specific subset of 'food_creature', which should be considered.
I just recommend aliasing those to 'candy_creature' before, for standardization.

See forum #230099.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

• food creature → food

+1.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

• food creature → animate inanimate
• living machine → animate inanimate

Well, 'animate_inanimate' is a good tag, however is easy to overuse it since technically would apply to many instances of 'flora_fauna', 'mineral_fauna', 'fungi_fauna' as well as to practically all cases of 'undead', 'robot' etc. Regarding the implications in question, I am not sure if they are or not a good idea.

O16 said:

Well, 'animate_inanimate' is a good tag, however is easy to overuse it since technically would apply to many instances of 'flora_fauna', 'mineral_fauna', 'fungi_fauna' as well as to practically all cases of 'undead', 'robot' etc. Regarding the implications in question, I am not sure if they are or not a good idea.

Hm I suppose so. I just assumed animate inanimate meant any non-living organism like plushes, food, minerals, etc. But I suppose robots would kind of be considered that.

However I disagree with you on flora and fungi fauna being considered animate inanimate. Plants and fungi are organisms, therefore flora fauna and fungi fauna i just considered a catch all tag for anthro/humanoid forms of plants and fungi.
Disagree with zombies however, as while they do "reanimate" they're still like.. creatures and not objects.

But yeah candy girl being aliased into candy creature would be good if it isn't removed, especially when most people agreed to remove gender specific species tags.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

However I disagree with you on flora and fungi fauna being considered animate inanimate. Plants and fungi are organisms, therefore flora fauna and fungi fauna i just considered a catch all tag for anthro/humanoid forms of plants and fungi.
Disagree with zombies however, as while they do "reanimate" they're still like.. creatures and not objects.

Technically, an animate inanimate is a thing that normally would be inanimate (unable to express observable movement and reaction), but that currently is expressing animation; and many living or formerly live things are inanimate, for example: fecundated eggs, cacti, fruits, mushrooms, corpses, mildew, sea sponges, wood etc.
However (as I said) if we get sticked to such technicalities we hardly will get great results.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
But yeah candy girl being aliased into candy creature would be good if it isn't removed, especially when most people agreed to remove gender specific species tags.

I don't know if it's necessary to differentiate candy and food, but I definitely agree about aliasing candy_girl away. We don't tag species by gender. Keeping it would set a bad precedent.