Implicating furfrou → poodle
Link to implication

Reason:

Reason 1: Officially labeled "poodle pokemon" under category "classification". -> http://www.serebii.net/pokedex-xy/676.shtml

Reason 2: Looks like a poodle

Pokémon -> Species implications are always bad. Furfrou can be drawn as something other than a poodle. Ever heard of gijinka?

I'm -1 on this for the reason FOG mentioned.

However, there have been enough of these suggested that perhaps we should consider allowing users to contribute tagging 'suggestions' that could be offered where applicable on the edit section. We don't currently do much suggestion of tags, only related tags, but it makes sense for eg. Pokemon species, characters.

I think we need to put a sticky up about this because it seems to happen often and the answer is always the same.

Ko-san said:
I think we need to put a sticky up about this because it seems to happen often and the answer is always the same.

Same for pokemon -> characters. I agree with the sticky thing.

savageorange said:
However, there have been enough of these suggested that perhaps we should consider allowing users to contribute tagging 'suggestions' that could be offered where applicable on the edit section. We don't currently do much suggestion of tags, only related tags, but it makes sense for eg. Pokemon species, characters.

Not that this is the same level of usefulness, but it might be helpful to add things like "...resembles a canine" to the wiki for pokemon that this is applicable to.

Implication denied, the pokémon -> species implications look good on the surface but tend to cause too many issues to be worth implicating them. You are, however, free to tag them with poodle if they happen to look like one.

I'm not exactly sure about the details, but I'll try to bring up the sticky suggestion with the other admins to see if there are any possible options for this.