The bulk update request #4762 is pending approval.

create implication asher_sterling (96) -> maleherm_(lore) (1251)
create implication asher_sterling (96) -> wickerbeast (979)

Reason: This is just to make things very slightly easier for me when tagging art with my fursona, especially with the lore tag since I forget to add it sometimes.

Site policy is not to implicate things like that in case of variations or fanart that deviate from it, species especially. I'm afraid you're just going to have to make more of an effort to remember.

LendriMujina's right. What if you post art of someone (who is, for example, a female fox) costumed like Asher while Asher themself isn't visible? What if you decide to commission a transformation sequence which turns Asher into an unambiguously female (both TWYS- and lore-wise) fox in the final picture? What if you portray an Asher from an alternate universe in which they're a different gender, lore-wise?

We understand your wanting to streamline your tagging process, but implicating a character to things that can be legitimately portrayed differently in pictures and wouldn't always necessarily be correct, even lore-wise, are why e621 doesn't implicate characters to a specific gender or species. It would only gum up your attempts to tag things correctly.

beanthusiast said:
The bulk update request #4762 is pending approval.

create implication asher_sterling (96) -> maleherm_(lore) (1251)
create implication asher_sterling (96) -> wickerbeast (979)

Reason: This is just to make things very slightly easier for me when tagging art with my fursona, especially with the lore tag since I forget to add it sometimes.

Relted: https://e621.net/forum_topics/37179
I'm still adamant that my idea of automatially suggesting what tags to use would prevent this sort of frustration or confusion, especially among new maintainers or artists who otherwise never use the site.