The bulk update request #2257 has been rejected.

create implication cat_ear_headphones -> cat_ears
create implication cat_ear_headphones -> fake_animal_ears
create implication bunny_headphones -> bunny_ears
create implication bunny_headphones -> fake_animal_ears

Reason: The name pretty much says that these headphones have animal ears on them.
And these are fake.

That's how we tag animal_ and fake_animal_ears usually.

However, for the bunny headphones there is stuff like post #3709749 where the things are earphones instead. I didn't see those for the cat_ear_headphones but I could'Ve just skipped them.

And then there are headphones where the ears aren't on the hairband part: post #2381381 (NSFW)

EDIT: This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2257 (forum #162528) has been rejected by @evazion.

-1 I don't think they should qualify for animal ears or fake animal ears. Both usually have a distinct look which are far apart from the look that headphones present. Also, another example of something with cat ears but not really is cat ear panties, which look like cat ears but are very far from the look of actual cat ears. Finally, just ask yourself this... when searching for cat/bunny ears or fake animal ears, do you really want to see headphones? For myself at least, the answer to that question is no.

I'm inclined to agree with BrokenEagle98 on this one; when I search for animal_ears of any kind, I expect them to look somewhat similar to the real thing even if they're fake. There's a huge difference in realism between fake animal ears like post #3753202 and vaguely ear-shaped headphones like post #3690858 (and basically all other axent_wear). For similar reasons, a cat_hood shouldn't implicate cat_ears or fake_animal_ears either, because then we'd have to sift through stuff like post #3764048.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

The bulk update request #2257 (forum #162528) has been rejected by @evazion.

Tag manually as appropriate. If they're on the headband part and they look reasonably like ears I think it's fine (and cases like this are often tagged fake animal ears already), but if they're on the earphone part I wouldn't tag it.

evazion said:

Tag manually as appropriate. If they're on the headband part and they look reasonably like ears I think it's fine (and cases like this are often tagged fake animal ears already), but if they're on the earphone part I wouldn't tag it.

Sounds reasonable enough to me.

Then remove the implication from fake animal ears to animal ears.
Otherwise it's an ugly double-standard.

The way it is now, you're inclined to get missing tags.

Lacrimosa said:

Then remove the implication from fake animal ears to animal ears.
Otherwise it's an ugly double-standard.

The way it is now, you're inclined to get missing tags.

But the implication makes sense, fake animal ears are still animal ears.

Unbreakable said:

But the implication makes sense, fake animal ears are still animal ears.

I wonder.
Most of the images under bunny girl don't really show "realistic", which was one of the concerns mentioned above.