Implicating cute_fangs → fangs
Link to implication

Reason:

They're still fangs.

EDIT: The tag implication cute_fangs -> fangs (forum #209965) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

... -1 to this post, you could of very easily suggested it in forum #209811...

Siral_Exan said:
... -1 to this post, you could of very easily suggested it in forum #209811...

Seconded, so -1 from me to this post as well.

That thread has nothing to do with this suggestion tho. There was no reason to suggest it there where it would've just been forgotten among other posts.

Delian said:
That thread has nothing to do with this suggestion tho. There was no reason to suggest it there where it would've just been forgotten among other posts.

The topic was cute fangs. This topic is cute fangs. Ergo, we now have two topics about cute fangs, when we only need one.

Points brought up either here or there can effect the other's post. If cute_fang gets invalidated, what happens to this post...?

Delian said:
That thread has nothing to do with this suggestion tho. There was no reason to suggest it there where it would've just been forgotten among other posts.

If you had bothered to read the responses to your own posts, you'd have realized that everybody was already against it.

Sorry, buddy, but "Cute Fang" makes sense to us all despite its "Improper wording," and if we understand it, it works.

Dude, that thread is about an alias, and this thread is about an implication. It's two different things, ok?

Delian said:
Dude, that thread is about an alias, and this thread is about an implication. It's two different things, ok?

An implication involving [cute fangs]. Compared to an alias involving [cute fangs]. What is relevant here is also relevant there, and vice versa, so making a second post involving cute fangs was not needed. After the discussion occurred, it would be necessary to make a new thread as to be a bit more clockwork with the implication, but not before the discussion is over.

Like I said, what happens if it gets invalidated because of a reason. Now two threads would need to be denied, and two threads would potentially have counter-arguments involving the same topic.

Is there a rule which says that.. In case you're proposing both an alias and an implication, they should both be in the same thread?

I think I heard admins say in the past that it's easier for them to approve aliases/implications when they're made using the formal proposal system.

But, just to assure you, I've taken into account the possible outcomes of the other thread, and have decided that in a vast majority of the most likely outcomes, this thread will still be valid.

Well, if there is such a rule that all aliases/implications regarding one tag should all be in the same topic, then please, delete this thread.

+1 to the implication. Like others have said, this probably didn't deserve its own thread, but I think we've all seen worse offenders when it comes to multi-posting. Implication is still good

Here, allow me to shorthand it since it will be difficult to disassemble and explain and every detail: why the sudden change of heart? There is a argument involving cute fang that you are participating in, where you say it is useless, but now you are accepting it and instead want to imply it? The argument is not finished but yet you want to turncoat on it without saying so?

That is why this thread is redundant, it doesn't make any sense to seem to change your opinion without saying so. And since I, and others as demonstrated, do not want to assume, keeping it all on one thread, so said thread works as a reference instead of having to sift through multiple to find the point, is better.

Delian said:
Is there a rule which says that.. In case you're proposing both an alias and an implication, they should both be in the same thread?

I think I heard admins say in the past that it's easier for them to approve aliases/implications when they're made using the formal proposal system.

But, just to assure you, I've taken into account the possible outcomes of the other thread, and have decided that in a vast majority of the most likely outcomes, this thread will still be valid.

Well, if there is such a rule that all aliases/implications regarding one tag should all be in the same topic, then please, delete this thread.

It's not a full-fledged rule, but admins can change an officially suggested alias or implication, so once one is in play, they can easily just modify it as necessary.

+1

Related Implication:

• fangs -> teeth

Bump, I just tried to request this.

According to their wiki pages, they do not appear to be mutually exclusive.

It is true that cute_* tags are almost always aliased to their generic counterparts. However, since there are 15k posts under cute_fangs, I presume that it is considered an useful tag and therefore an acceptable exception to the rule; nevertheless, cute fangs are still fangs.

This is what I was going to write as a reason. However, it seems that the main objection to this request was the aliasing of cute_fang to cute_fangs. Since that has already been done, this should not be very controversial.

Why hasn't this implication been created yet? Seems like an obvious one.

Still a good implication.

I see it used too often to mean cute+fangs. Cute is aliased away for being too subjective, and the objective style cute_fangs is intended to have is often missing, so it should it be aliased, IMO.

watsit said:
I see it used too often to mean cute+fangs. Cute is aliased away for being too subjective, and the objective style cute_fangs is intended to have is often missing, so it should it be aliased, IMO.

https://www.knowyourmeme.com/memes/cute-little-fang

Maybe alias cute_fangs to yaeba?

scaliespe said:
Why hasn't this implication been created yet? Seems like an obvious one.

A lot of obvious implications haven't been done yet, may be a product of the forums getting less use back then?

kemonophonic said:
https://www.knowyourmeme.com/memes/cute-little-fang

Maybe alias cute_fangs to yaeba?

+1 to this.

kemonophonic said:
https://www.knowyourmeme.com/memes/cute-little-fang

Maybe alias cute_fangs to yaeba?

Very few people on this site are going to search for "yaeba", it's an obscure Japanese term.

On one hand, cute has been invalidated due to how ambiguous it is.
But this seems clearly defined, so I don't object to the tag.

I don't have a better name for it either, though.

I've always thought small_fangs might be a better name for this

HUUUH
this is still ongoing?
post #3965804

how is it still in the backlogs.
Thought this was aproved ages ago.
Fangs are fangs

cloudpie said:
I've always thought small_fangs might be a better name for this

Yeah...but small fangs are cute and therefore are cute_fangs.
Like my pfp's possum fangs, adorable. Small, yes, but cute.

The tag implication cute_fangs -> fangs (forum #209965) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.