Implicating anthrofied -> anthro.

Reason: forum #72311
There is IMO reasonable suggestion what is anthro, and no opposition against change.

And I think that only anthro character can be considered anthrofied.

Ok, why not. I mean, this'll help.

Seems Legit.
Can't think of any situations off hand where this would not be the case.

Sent by Rainbow_Dash 2 hours ago

A tag implication you submitted (anthrofied → anthro) was deleted for the following reason: Denied.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-4o6No-BKI

But seriously, why? Is there a case where anthrofied is not anthro, or are we going to wait infinite amount of time before we can change anthro tagging rules.

In forum #74238 Rainbow Dash said:
The anthro implication has been denied too because we've had the argument before and concluded that anthrofied will exist separately to anthro to help with filtering of anthro images were the character was never feral to begin with

I'm not suggesting alias, but implication. Filtering still can be done with anthro -anthrofied for post that contains only anthro characters that were never feral.

It may have been discussed, but there is suggestion of anthro tagging rules change in forum #72311.

Unless you're suggesting that there is still no change of rule for tagging anthro. Even though nobody seemed to object it. (Aurali didn't complain about suggested anthro definition) If that's the case then when we can get clear statement whether rules for anthro tag are changing or not?