[APPROVED] Fang implications

@NWF_Renim: Removed the closed mouth implications from the...

2019-04-27T19:28:49-04:00

Removed the closed mouth implications from the bulk update.

@DanbooruBot: The bulk update request #2000 (forum #156099)...

2019-04-27T19:28:17-04:00

The bulk update request #2000 (forum #156099) has been approved by @NWF_Renim.

@EB: > evazion said: > > Fang out and fangs out...

2019-04-10T04:10:33-04:00

evazion said:

Fang out and fangs out were both originally created by @EB, but fangs out came a couple years later and the fang out wiki was never updated to consider the new tag.

If I actually created the latter, it may have been by accident. I feel like I've mostly been under the impression, because of the rejected implication threads pointed out here, that fang out covered both fang and fangs. But I've got no strong opinion either way whether fangs out should exist as a separate tag. It's just that, as iridescent slime said, it would require a lot of tag cleanup.

@evazion: I agree with implying fang / fangs but not with...

2019-04-10T02:12:46-04:00

I agree with implying fang / fangs but not with closed mouth.

Fang out and fangs out were both originally created by @EB, but fangs out came a couple years later and the fang out wiki was never updated to consider the new tag.

I do think it's worth keeping fangs out separate from fang out. I think there's a distinct visual difference between the two, plus it allows for implications. Not implying fang/fangs has led to neither tag being used on a good third of all fang out posts (see fang_out -fang -fangs). This is hard to garden since usually you can't tell from the thumbnail whether it's one fang or two fangs.

As for closed mouth, while fang out shouldn't be used on fully open mouths (which is a common mistake), I do think it can be used on slightly parted lips. See post #3445552, post #3419540, post #3028042, and post #3299286. The important thing is that the fang protrudes past the lip, which can happen on slightly open mouths.

@iridescent_slime: If you carefully read that wiki definition you...

2019-04-10T01:03:29-04:00

If you carefully read that wiki definition you quoted, you'll see that there is a slight problem with this set of implications:

When a character shows a fang or fangs outside a closed mouth.

Fang_out, per its definition, may be used when both fangs are visible. As things stand, fang_out can't implicate fang because fang is only for a single visible fang. That's why this very same implication was rejected several years ago.

As for fangs_out, it was created comparatively recently, presumably by someone who didn't know that fang_out could be plural. It sees little use, because most of us know to use fang_out + fang/fangs, and also due to neglect on the part of its users. It has no wiki, and other wiki pages don't link to it. I wasn't even aware this tag existed.

If there's a movement to redefine fang_out to only be singular, and make fangs_out "official", I'd be okay with that, but keep in mind that there will be some manual cleanup involved for images like post #2349393 and post #2845900. Alternatively, we could just alias fangs_out to fang_out and continue tagging fang or fangs as necessary.

As for implicating closed_mouth, forum #121965 summarizes my feelings pretty well.

@user_429955: [bur:2000] Reason: fang out wiki: When a...

2019-04-10T00:26:45-04:00

The bulk update request #2000 is active.

create implication fang_out -> fang
create implication fangs_out -> fangs

Reason: fang out wiki:

When a character shows a fang or fangs outside a closed mouth.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2000 (forum #156099) has been approved by @NWF_Renim.