Implicating fangs → teeth
Link to implication

Reason:

It says that fangs are teeth right in the wiki here:
General: fangs
The sharp teeth found in the mouths of carnivorous animals."

So shouldn't all posts tagged with "fangs" be tagged with "teeth" as well?

While I agree, I think this implication was attempted once before, and I think it was denied because some reason similar to "The implication would make it harder to find posts with fangs in them".

Edit: I was referencing this thread. https://e621.net/forum/show/145971
But it seems I was mistaken about which implication it was about. Still somewhat relevant to this issue tho.

Peekaboo said:
While I agree, I think this implication was attempted once before, and I think it was denied because some reason similar to "The implication would make it harder to find posts with fangs in them".

I'm confused, how would it make it harder to find posts with fangs? When someone searches for fangs they will still get the same results won't they?

Sneaky said:
I'm confused, how would it make it harder to find posts with fangs? When someone searches for fangs they will still get the same results won't they?

I'm a bit tired so I might just be talking nonsense.

I know you only just suggested this. However, forum #145971 is very much related to this suggestion and they both have to be denied for the same reasons. So I'm going to say what I said there:

Denied because fangs, sharp_teeth and normal teeth are very distinct from each other visually. They're more closely related on a technical level than they are on a search level.

I don't think it's very common for a someone to be searching for one of them and also be looking for the other two styles of teeth within the same search. I think implicating these reduces the ability to search specifically for the visual effect you want.

For instance:

• Would someone searching for regular teeth be satisfied with images where no teeth are visible except for small fangs peeking out over their lip? Or are they looking for more teeth than that?
• Would someone searching for sharp_teeth be satisfied or looking for images with only two sharp teeth which are better described as fangs? Or would they be looking for a mouthful of menacingly sharp teeth and find results with fangs to be unwanted search clutter?
• And does it even make sense to have the tags teeth and sharp_teeth added to images of snakes who may have a wide open mouth with fangs bared, but pretty obvious that they don't have anything resembling teeth or sharp_teeth in the rest of their mouth?

This is one of those cases where it makes perfect sense on a what-you-know level. But visually there's a lot more difference between them. And for searches, that difference matters a lot more than the trivia that all of these are technically made out of the same calcified material. So I think it's more functional to keep them separate.

furrypickle said:
I know you only just suggested this. However, forum #145971 is very much related to this suggestion and they both have to be denied for the same reasons. So I'm going to say what I said there:

Denied because fangs, sharp_teeth and normal teeth are very distinct from each other visually. They're more closely related on a technical level than they are on a search level.

I don't think it's very common for a someone to be searching for one of them and also be looking for the other two styles of teeth within the same search. I think implicating these reduces the ability to search specifically for the visual effect you want.

For instance:

• Would someone searching for regular teeth be satisfied with images where no teeth are visible except for small fangs peeking out over their lip? Or are they looking for more teeth than that?
• Would someone searching for sharp_teeth be satisfied or looking for images with only two sharp teeth which are better described as fangs? Or would they be looking for a mouthful of menacingly sharp teeth and find results with fangs to be unwanted search clutter?
• And does it even make sense to have the tags teeth and sharp_teeth added to images of snakes who may have a wide open mouth with fangs bared, but pretty obvious that they don't have anything resembling teeth or sharp_teeth in the rest of their mouth?

This is one of those cases where it makes perfect sense on a what-you-know level. But visually there's a lot more difference between them. And for searches, that difference matters a lot more than the trivia that all of these are technically made out of the same calcified material. So I think it's more functional to keep them separate.

Alright, fair enough. I was looking at that thread earlier and I felt it was sort of the same idea.

Peekaboo said:
I'm a bit tired so I might just be talking nonsense.

No worries, I know what you meant now.

Wow, I was just about to imply the same thing until I contemplated why it hasn't been done before and found this forum explaining why.

GameManiac said:
Wow, I was just about to imply the same thing until I contemplated why it hasn't been done before and found this forum explaining why.

Don't bump a year-old thread if you have nothing of value to add to it.