The tag implication #65331 cute_fangs -> fangs has been approved.

Reason: I think it's pretty obvious why this should be implied...

EDIT: The tag implication cute_fangs -> fangs (forum #421212) has been approved by @spe.

I think cute_fangs should be renamed. It's too often used to mean cute+fangs, where cute is aliased away for being too subjective.

sebbidraws said:
The tag implication #65331 cute_fangs -> fangs has been approved.

Reason: I think it's pretty obvious why this should be implied...

Cute fangs has never sat right with me, it was always too ambiguous and could apply to different concepts, like Watsit said.

However, there's a place for describing a character with small, "cute" fangs (or one "cute fang"), but it should be under a more specific tag like small fangs, and if it's only one fang, and it should be under one fang.

Renaming the tag can be discussed separately. Regardless of what they are to be called, they are still fangs, so the implication to fangs is accurate.

The tag implication cute_fangs -> fangs (forum #421212) has been approved by @spe.