The tag implication #37239 nipples -> areola has been rejected.

Reason: if enough of the nipple is visible to tag nipples, wouldnt the areola also be visible? (a lot of things that are tagged nipples that have the areola clearly visible arent tagged as such and i was wondering if this could be fixed eith a simple implication, uf there are any examples where you would legitimately tag nipplss but not areola please provide them)

EDIT: The tag implication nipples -> areola (forum #303017) has been rejected by @Millcore.

I don't think this or this would count as having areola, despite nipples clearly being visible.

watsit said:
I don't think this or this would count as having areola, despite nipples clearly being visible.

Apologies if I'm wrong, but aren't both of those examples teats? So they shouldn't be tagged with nipples to begin with?

But still, -1 from me. Nipples can be drawn without the areola. The areola could be covered up, or the artist could outright decide not to draw them entirely.

post #2431878
Some reptilian artists have the nipples peek through the scales.
post #799865
Some will draw a nipple without any areola.

JollyJack's Chloe Sinclaire is routinely drawn with nipples but no areolas. This seems to be a common motif in JollyJack's anthro art.
post #2479015
Although it's not a bad suggestion and areola probably is woefully undertagged, an implication wouldn't be appropriate here.

The tag implication nipples -> areola (forum #303017) has been rejected by @Millcore.