The tag implication #50796 nerd_(species) -> living_candy has been rejected.

Reason: Nerds are just living nerds so all of them should fall under this.

EDIT: The tag implication nerd_(species) -> living_candy (forum #366535) has been rejected by @slyroon.

In theory, nerd_(species) is ambiguous, since the original definition of "nerd" was a fictional species from Dr. Suess's book If I Ran The Zoo. But I don't think that type of "nerd" even has any posts on this site, so it's probably not worth worrying about.

A more relevant issue is if Nerds (candy creatures) could ever be drawn as not candy...? For example, if they had fur, would they still be candy?

crocogator said:
In theory, nerd_(species) is ambiguous, since the original definition of "nerd" was a fictional species from Dr. Suess's book If I Ran The Zoo. But I don't think that type of "nerd" even has any posts on this site, so it's probably not worth worrying about.

I imagine those nerds would be tagged as nerd_(dr._seuss) to prevent confusion with other nerds.

A more relevant issue is if Nerds (candy creatures) could ever be drawn as not candy...? For example, if they had fur, would they still be candy?

Possibly. Ever seen a lollipop after it's been stuffed in a pocket, dropped on the floor, or temporarily lost under the bed? Technically, that wouldn't be fur, but it likely would look like it. As with all things on the site, it depends on what it's drawn like.

Even the candy mascots, IMO, do not qualify as living candy. They’re depicted in official advertising more as some kind of animal, with no characteristics that would identify them as living candy, beyond recognizing that they resemble the candy.

The tag implication nerd_(species) -> living_candy (forum #366535) has been rejected by @slyroon.