Implicating tuft → fur
Link to implication

Reason:

EDIT: The tag implication tuft -> fur (forum #250653) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

+1

I think that's always true. Should be useful.

Tufts are already tagged fur_[color], so there's not much room for disagreement.

My one reservation is with body_hair also tagged as the *_tuft it looks like. For example, posts like these tagged chest_hair and chest_tuft would also get tagged fur for that chest hair with this implication, and I don't know if that's correct.

post #521615 post #1213358

I don't know whether these should be chest_hair, chest_tuft, or both. I can accept sparser hairs being called "tufts", but I don't like calling sparse hair "fur". Hair density is what separates "hair" from "fur".

These mixed hair-fur cases that aren't obvious mistags are exceedingly rare, so this is basically a non-issue.

what about tufts on feathery things? birds can have tufts too!

That's right... oh well.

-1

Does anything else make up tufts?

abadbird said:
That's right... oh well.

-1

Does anything else make up tufts?

i think spikes could too. i mean like porcupines and stuff

The tag implication tuft -> fur (forum #250653) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.