Implicating fangs → Sharp_teeth
Link to implication

Reason:

This is partially meant for discussion. The way I see it is that by definition fangs are essentially sharp, possibly modified, teeth. However, while technically true I'm not sure if the "cute little fangs" you see sometimes should qualify for sharp_teeth seeing as they serve slightly different purposes.

While you're technically right since fangs are teeth and sharp, I'd prefer to keep them seperate, quite simply because when I search for sharp_teeth, I'm looking for a whole mouthful of them. The predatory type. Not stump teeth with perhaps a few sharp incisors (like us), and especially not a manga-style cute little fang.

Jugofthat said:
While you're technically right since fangs are teeth, I'd prefer to keep them seperate, quite simply because when I search for sharp_teeth, I'm looking for a whole mouthful of them. The predatory type. Not stump teeth with perhaps a few sharp incisors (like us), and especially not an anime-style cute little fang.

There's also snake fangs to consider.

Related: Do you think this should even imply teeth? At this point I'm not entirely convinced that teeth by itself is as a very useful tag.

It makes sense to have teeth for regular teeth and sharp_teeth for sharp ones, but I agree that the use of that implication is a bit questionable, unless you like to think of it in a big_penis -> penis way. But that's a bit silly as sharp teeth are very different from regular teeth, not bigger, it's not a scale thing where you still need the base tag. Unless teeth isn't meant for regular teeth but really more of an an umbrella tag. Derp.

That being said, I almost never tag teeth on its own since I don't think they're remarkable enough to warrant one. It seems a bit like tagging lips, which nobody ever does unless there's something about them that stands out. Like sharp teeth, which I tag all the damn time.

Fangs are basically longer teeth... Typically, they're designed for piercing, and as such will be sharp, but that's not always the case. I mean, obviously if you've got some incisors doing it, it'll be {{bucktooth} but like you said, Snakes tend to have fangs, too, and those fangs could theoretically be dull, simply being for show (See tusks). I could not find any evidence of this being the case in the real world, but you never know when it comes to fantasy.

Spiders have fangs too, and I don't think those quite fit under the teeth tag.

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 that 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.