Implicating blonde_fur → fur.
Link to implication.

Reason:

There's no tag for blonde fur. I have to search through thousands of images to find a blonde furred girl. It would make this so much easier.

all of my -1, what you're suggesting is implicating a tag to species which is wholly inaccurate as people give animals random color pallets all the time.

Try yellow_fur or tan_fur in your searches

Versperus said:
all of my -1, what you're suggesting is implicating a tag to species which is wholly inaccurate as people give animals random color pallets all the time.

Try yellow_fur or tan_fur in your searches

No, it's not yellow fur I'm looking for. See my profile picture? That's blonde fur. See Isabelle from animal crossing? That's yellow fur. They need separate tags.

Potato565 said:
No, it's not yellow fur I'm looking for. See my profile picture? That's blonde fur. See Isabelle from animal crossing? That's yellow fur. They need separate tags.

I don't mean to be rude, it's just that what you're suggesting, I already tried. No results. Most people who post blonde girls don't even tag them as yellow fur, so if there was a tag specifically for blonde fur, then there's a higher chance of it being tagged as blonde fur.

Potato565 said:
I don't mean to be rude, it's just that what you're suggesting, I already tried. No results. Most people who post blonde girls don't even tag them as yellow fur, so if there was a tag specifically for blonde fur, then there's a higher chance of it being tagged as blonde fur.

the tag for blonde_fur is aliased to yellow_fur, but their is a distinct difference from un-aliasing blonde_fur from yellow_fur and implicating it, as implicating things is only viable when there is no chance for effectively locking an incorrect tag to an image. Say someone implicates blonde_fur to golden_retriever but their is an image where they gave it blue_fur than you would have a post with blonde_fur locked onto it due to implication but no blonde fur on the image

Versperus said:
the tag for blonde_fur is aliased to yellow_fur, but their is a distinct difference from un-aliasing blonde_fur from yellow_fur and implicating it, as implicating things is only viable when there is no chance for effectively locking an incorrect tag to an image. Say someone implicates blonde_fur to golden_retriever but their is an image where they gave it blue_fur than you would have a post with blonde_fur locked onto it due to implication but no blonde fur on the image

What are you talking about? If I take an image of a blonde furred dog tagged with 'blonde_fur', change the colour of the fur to blue and repost it, I'm not still gonna put the tag as blonde_fur because it's fur is blue. Tags aren't locked to an image, you can remove them. I don't want the tag locked to an image, I just want the option to put it as a tag for better and more specific search results

Blonde fur is yellow fur. There is no difference. Blonde is simply a descriptor for yellow hair of any sort, defined as Of a bleached or pale golden (light yellowish) color. . Since the two words are synonymous, all you need to do is search for yellow_fur, and you'll find all your blonde-furred characters.

Clawstripe said:
Blonde fur is yellow fur. There is no difference. Blonde is simply a descriptor for yellow hair of any sort, defined as Of a bleached or pale golden (light yellowish) color. . Since the two words are synonymous, all you need to do is search for yellow_fur, and you'll find all your blonde-furred characters.

Well, I did that. And, found nothing of interest. No blondes. There was like 6 images and most of them had yellow fur. Not blonde, yellow.

Potato565 said:
What are you talking about? If I take an image of a blonde furred dog tagged with 'blonde_fur', change the colour of the fur to blue and repost it, I'm not still gonna put the tag as blonde_fur because it's fur is blue. Tags aren't locked to an image, you can remove them. I don't want the tag locked to an image, I just want the option to put it as a tag for better and more specific search results

you put in a implication request for species which have blonde fur, implications are tags that automatically get added when a user adds a different tag, for example pikachu implicates both pokémon and pokémon_(species)

Potato565 said:
Well, I did that. And, found nothing of interest. No blondes. There was like 6 images and most of them had yellow fur. Not blonde, yellow.

also your profile pictures character has tan_fur

Denied