Implicating *_fur -> fur.

Reason: *_fur is
Red_fur, blue_fur, green_fur, you-get-the-point_fur. Any colour fur will get tagged with fur this way, and I'm pretty sure there are other ..._fur tags too, all with fur visible.

Sounds good to me, any one else?

So furry is an invalid tag but fur isn't? How does that make sense?

ippiki_ookami said:
So furry is an invalid tag but fur isn't? How does that make sense?

Tail too. If fur isn't a bloat tag, I don't know what is.

sounds a bit redundant to tag fur on every other image when most people come here for that specific reason, that is to see fur.

It's one of those tags that are assumed to be in almost all pictures here.

would be like tagging fictional character or digital illustration, would it not?

Hmmm, that does make sense. Let's just stick with implications of *_fur -> *_body

Rainbow_Dash said:
Hmmm, that does make sense. Let's just stick with implications of *_fur -> *_body

What why? _body is used for creatures without fur. Not to mention just because we tag something's fur color doesnt mean it's covering their body.

Kimpumomo said:
sounds a bit redundant to tag fur on every other image when most people come here for that specific reason, that is to see fur.

It's one of those tags that are assumed to be in almost all pictures here.

would be like tagging fictional character or digital illustration, would it not?

Sorry, but no. (most) dragons and scalies are furless, cetacean and marine creatures are furless, amphibians and reptilians are furless, need I go on? By your logic, tagging sex and anthro is not necessary. I still think my suggested implication is a good idea.
Another example: the hair tag has most colours of hair implicated to it. Shouldn't the hair tag be deleted, since almost every character has hair? I don't think that's a good idea at all. Tag what you see, I see fur, tag fur.

ippiki_ookami said:
What why? _body is used for creatures without fur. Not to mention just because we tag something's fur color doesnt mean it's covering their body.

Just to use as an umbrella term for the various types of fur/scales/skin and especially if it's difficult to tell, such as the case with ponies of which is the main reason I suggested it

MaShCr said:
Tail too. If fur isn't a bloat tag, I don't know what is.

And at least tail was a useful tag.

While we're adding fur, why not implicate mammal while we're at it? I'd find that more useful.

ThenIThought said:
While we're adding fur, why not implicate mammal while we're at it? I'd find that more useful.

Dragons are mammals too? Not sure any pics on here, but could be others with fur which are not mammals.

furballs_dc said:
Dragons are mammals too? Not sure any pics on here, but could be others with fur which are not mammals.

I meant to say, let's implicate all the mammal species to mammal.

But even then, dragons don't have fur, they have scales, even fins.

Tweek

Better seen fur in the game guide pic though.