The tag alias #67247 cute_fangs -> small_fangs has been rejected.

Reason: Aliasing away a cute_* tag, and cute_fangs as the wiki states, are small, so this is the closest tag to alias to.

EDIT: The tag alias cute_fangs -> small_fangs (forum #392848) has been rejected by @slyroon.

The correct name for it is yaeba (八重歯). If we can have tags like ahoge and wariza then it shouldn't be a problem, right?

Also: https://e621.net/forum_topics/15069

Hard disagree. As was mentioned the last time someone tried to alias this, cute fangs are a specific thing and have nothing to do with why cute was aliased away. Cute fangs have a specific shape and size and are not open to ambiguity the way cute is.

I wouldn't mind renaming cute_fangs to a clearer name, but this isn't it. Even 2_small_fangs would be better (meaning I don't agree with the wiki saying "one or two" fangs). Use a 1_small_fang tag too for that variant, and move the cute_fang singular alias to that. Call it a done deal.

I don't care where it gets aliased to, but I never quiet understood how this tag gets used. 'Small_fangs' looks appropriate for an alias target to me.

thirtyeight said:
Cute fangs have a specific shape and size and are not open to ambiguity the way cute is.

If only. The current definition (last updated just this month) says "one or two small, protruding teeth that are there more to be cute than to actually look sharp and/or threatening", so it is still based on being "cute" (and it's not like "cute" and "sharp and/or threatening" are mutually exclusive). While there has been attempts to separate it from "cute", I don't understand what it's supposed to look like objectively, and I do often find it being used for "cute+fangs".

watsit said:
If only. The current definition (last updated just this month) says "one or two small, protruding teeth that are there more to be cute than to actually look sharp and/or threatening", so it is still based on being "cute" (and it's not like "cute" and "sharp and/or threatening" are mutually exclusive). While there has been attempts to separate it from "cute", I don't understand what it's supposed to look like objectively, and I do often find it being used for "cute+fangs".

You are conflating two different things. "Cute" was aliased away because there's no singular definition to what cute is and is not. "Cute fangs" on the other hand, does have a specific definition and can be identified. Yes, fangs are often added to make a character cuter, but that does not make the tag itself vague or ambiguous.

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

To qualify as a cute fang, the fang has to be small, blunt, and usually triangular in shape.

I understand targeting it for the subjective word cute, but actually what's being tagged is how the teeth are depicted- fangs are the weapons of an animal, cute_fangs is a snaggletooth anime girl. A small animal could have small_fangs and not have cute_fangs.

arrow189 said:
I understand targeting it for the subjective word cute, but actually what's being tagged is how the teeth are depicted- fangs are the weapons of an animal, cute_fangs is a snaggletooth anime girl. A small animal could have small_fangs and not have cute_fangs.

I agree with this take on the matter.
I mostly associate the cute fangs/yaeba with human characters as well - it's common in anime for completely human characters to have the cute fangs/yaeba mostly as a character design choice to express their personality than as a real anatomy thing. I don't think yaeba and, say, the canines of a character intended to be an animal or furry are the same thing or for the same purpose or generally have the same vibe in art (unless it's like, a kemono with a yaeba in art styles where mouth anatomy will be less defined by default). Thus, keeping small_fangs and cute_fangs separate helps as they are often not interchangable

thirtyeight said:
You are conflating two different things. "Cute" was aliased away because there's no singular definition to what cute is and is not. "Cute fangs" on the other hand, does have a specific definition and can be identified. Yes, fangs are often added to make a character cuter, but that does not make the tag itself vague or ambiguous.

Cute was aliased away because different people have different concepts of what can be cute. "Cute fangs" is different because they're added to make a character cute. I'm still not understanding how "cute fangs" is different with subjectivity, it still relies on what's considered "cute".

thirtyeight said:
To qualify as a cute fang, the fang has to be small, blunt, and usually triangular in shape.

Plenty of uses aren't. The first page of results has a number that are nice and sharp looking (but the character is "cute", I guess):
post #4624399 post #4624168 post #4620494

And I'm not sure how to even classify these (but I guess the character is "cute" in a way):
post #4619878 post #4624219 post #4621989

Or these where you can see they're part of a set of teeth (but again, the character can be considered "cute" to some):
post #4621349 post #4622930 post #4618600

I'm honestly not seeing how this is any less subjective, as it still depends on something being seen as "cute, but with fangs". If nothing else, people are heavily misinterpreting "cute_fangs" as "cute+fangs", so regardless of the intent of the tag with respect to "cute", it's being used as a partial workaround to cute being invalid, which something should be done about.

arrow189 said:
I understand targeting it for the subjective word cute, but actually what's being tagged is how the teeth are depicted- fangs are the weapons of an animal, cute_fangs is a snaggletooth anime girl. A small animal could have small_fangs and not have cute_fangs.

Would snaggletooth or snagglefang be a better descriptor/name, then?

The tag alias cute_fangs -> small_fangs (forum #392848) has been rejected by @slyroon.