The tag implication #44315 leafeon -> flora_fauna has been rejected.

Reason: Leafeon is a mix between a plant and an animal.

EDIT: The tag implication leafeon -> flora_fauna (forum #336324) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

This really gets into the topic of implicating pokemon to their animal base (e.g. lucario -> canine, zeraora -> feline). It's a surprisingly hot topic, with many saying it would cause bad tags when they're drawn differently, and others saying it's fine and no more a problem than any other species (and we're allowed to manually tag it anyway).

I could see something like a steel-grass leafeon fakemon. It could look like leafeon, but not be a plant.

This would be like implying fur to dog, it just wouldn't always be right.

kyiiel said:
I could see something like a steel-grass leafeon fakemon. It could look like leafeon, but not be a plant.

In that case it would be a hybrid. And just like a lion+fish hybrid would still be tagged mammal even when it's more a marine animal, a leafeon+something could still be tagged flora_fauna even when it looks more like something else.

kyiiel said:
This would be like implying fur to dog, it just wouldn't always be right.

More like implying canis to dog. It's a taxonomical species group, like mammal or avian, not strictly a bodily feature.

kyiiel said:
I could see something like a steel-grass leafeon fakemon. It could look like leafeon, but not be a plant.

This would be like implying fur to dog, it just wouldn't always be right.

Hypothetically, a robotic animal resembling a plant could be tagged flora_fauna, so… I don’t think that’s a problem.

Does the flora_fauna tag require the plant parts to be visible, or can they be off-screen? Currently, flora_fauna implies plant, suggesting the plant parts need to be visible. Hypothetically, these pictures would be counter-examples of leafeon -> flora_fauna, if it weren't for the leaves visible on the leg (former) or pubes (latter): post #1374361 post #1901697

crocogator said:
Does the flora_fauna tag require the plant parts to be visible, or can they be off-screen? Currently, flora_fauna implies plant, suggesting the plant parts need to be visible. Hypothetically, these pictures would be counter-examples of leafeon -> flora_fauna, if it weren't for the leaves visible on the leg (former) or pubes (latter): post #1374361 post #1901697

It’s dubious if you can tag any specific species here anyway, since so little of the creature is visible. It’s getting into TWYK territory. The first one kinda just looks like differently colored cats.

crocogator said:
Does the flora_fauna tag require the plant parts to be visible, or can they be off-screen? Currently, flora_fauna implies plant, suggesting the plant parts need to be visible. Hypothetically, these pictures would be counter-examples of leafeon -> flora_fauna, if it weren't for the leaves visible on the leg (former) or pubes (latter): post #1374361 post #1901697

That may be broaching the larger issue of tagging a species/character when all you can see is a disembodied_hand or disembodied_penis.

scaliespe said:
It’s dubious if you can tag any specific species here anyway, since so little of the creature is visible. It’s getting into TWYK territory. The first one kinda just looks like differently colored cats.

Species are a mix of TWYS and TWYK. If we go by TWYS strictly, you can't even say they're cats, and many posts couldn't properly tag a species since the details would be so generic and could fit many different species. It's reasonable to assume you can tag a species as long as it's not obviously wrong (e.g. tagging dog for what's clearly a lion, unless it's visibly some kind of lion+dog mix/hybrid).

The tag implication leafeon -> flora_fauna (forum #336324) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.