Implicating tanuki → canine
Link to implication

Reason:

I agree.

It fits with foxes implicating canine even though, technically, both are canids rather than just canines. But how many users of e621 would bother with that distinction? :p Raccoon_dog already aliases to tanuki, so there's no need to worry about that one either.

Clawstripe said:
I agree.

It fits with foxes implicating canine even though, technically, both are canids rather than just canines. But how many users of e621 would bother with that distinction? :p Raccoon_dog already aliases to tanuki, so there's no need to worry about that one either.

Actually, canine, In biology, is an umbrella term that encompases Canidae, Caninae, Canis and Domestic. In basic conversation, however, canine simply means "relating to or resembling a dog".

Canine also means your pointy teeth.

Halite said:
Canine also means your pointy teeth.

That too.

My concern would be whether this would water down the canine tag since it's technically a canine but doesn't look at all like it in most images. So for tagging purposes, is it going to help or hurt people finding what they need?

I know many people use the canine tag to find anything doglike and it's a fallback tag for when something can't be determined as a specific breed of dog/wolf/etc but you can tell it's at least from that part of the animal kingdom. But most of the images under tanuki don't look very doglike, so it would confuse the results for this common use of the canine tag in searches.

Mostly I am concerned if this implication only works on a technical level. Whether or not it also works on a practical tag/search level, or if it would cause problems.

We could alias it to mammal at least for now.

parasprite said:
We could alias it to mammal at least for now.

I'm assuming you meant implicate.

Durandal said:
I'm assuming you meant implicate.

no

Alright. So denied implication of tanuki to --> canine for reasons stated in the thread. But approved an implication for tanuki to --> mammal instead. I think it's the better solution in this case.