The tag implication #44272 furry_balls -> hairy_balls has been rejected.

Reason: It's the same thing, furry_balls just happens to pop in some peoples heads before hairy_balls do. Would force a bunch of art into one tag where it should be.

EDIT: The tag implication furry_balls -> hairy_balls (forum #335625) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

Sorry, this shoulda been a alias, not a implication, my bad!

puppertrix said:
The tag implication #44272 furry_balls -> hairy_balls has been rejected.

Reason: It's the same thing, furry_balls just happens to pop in some peoples heads before hairy_balls do. Would force a bunch of art into one tag where it should be.

Two Things:

1. I think you meant to create an alias, an implication would not make all posts tagged furry_balls tagged as hairy_balls INSTEAD, it would merely mean that all posts tagged as furry_balls would ALSO be tagged as hairy_ballsautomatically

2. I think there's value in having two similar, but distinct tags, one tag describing balls with especially thick fur that's the same fur as the rest of a character; and using hairy_balls for actual distinct pubic hairs or patches of hair covering the balls, similar to chest hair or "happy trails" like post #3258677 (often even drawn on fur covered characters). My thought here is that it would be better to alias furry_balls to fluffy_balls (which would subsequently need an article) so there's no ambiguity over the meaning of "furry" and so that there's a way to distinguish "thick fur covered balls" and "distinct pubic hair covered balls". Although it would take some time to sort through hairy_balls and figure out which ones should go to fluffy_balls

The tag implication furry_balls -> hairy_balls (forum #335625) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.