imply animal_ear_fluff -> animal_ears

BUR #27952 has been rejected.

create implication animal_ear_fluff -> animal_ears

self-explanitory

People use it for real animals like cats and dogs which do not have the animal_ears tag.

Previous topic #20080

Only comment is that the wiki still states "A distinct soft-looking fuzz that protrudes from the inside of animal ears." so that's probably what's instigating these BURs.

NorthernWing said:

Only comment is that the wiki still states "A distinct soft-looking fuzz that protrudes from the inside of animal ears." so that's probably what's instigating these BURs.

Yeah I didn't even think that normal animals aren't tagged with animal_ears.

minnazzo said:

Yeah I didn't even think that normal animals aren't tagged with animal_ears.

Normal animals do not get tagged with animal ears, the wiki very clearly states that it is for kemonomimi images. That being said I have no issues with Animal_ear_fluff being used on animal images because it's not always present on them so its a more useful search. post #5400044 and post #7690614 depict ears in a very different way and I think its worth tagging.

The bulk update request #27952 (forum #289045) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.