The bulk update request #3442 has been rejected.

change category cross_fox (1093) -> species
change category silver_fox (1785) -> species
change category marble_fox (558) -> species
change category platinum_fox (239) -> species

Reason: These technically aren't species, but I think they should still go in the species category to make it easier to see what exactly a character is. Especially since most of these look pretty different from red red foxes.

Should there also be implications silver_fox -> melanistic and cross_fox -> melanistic? That's what Wikipedia says they are.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3442 (forum #348024) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

Fur patterns aren't species, so no.

The bulk update request #3442 (forum #348024) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

This decision seems a little odd to me, since it's actually referring to a type of animal rather than being "cross_fox_fur_pattern" it feels like it belongs in the species category despite not being a species to me. Breeds of dogs aren't a separate species from a regular domestic_dog yet they get a species tag, and those are just fur pattern variations a lot of the time. (What's the difference between a pembroke_welsh_corgi and a cardigan_welsh_corgi?)

Despite being the "species" category it already seems to cover not just species but breeds, genuses, phylums, families, orders, etc. I'd expect anything that identifies the animal in an image to appear under the species category, and not along with the general tags.

EDIT: on the other hand, though, other things like white_tiger have been aliased away, which makes these tags another anomaly.

Let's not forget calico_cat, which is just a domestic cat with a piebald fur pattern. IIRC, it was moved from general to species during my time here.