The bulk update request #3588 is active.

create implication red_teeth (228) -> teeth (794000)
create implication orange_teeth (138) -> teeth (794000)
create implication yellow_teeth (2987) -> teeth (794000)
create implication green_teeth (300) -> teeth (794000)
create implication blue_teeth (469) -> teeth (794000)
create implication purple_teeth (72) -> teeth (794000)
create implication black_teeth (513) -> teeth (794000)
create implication grey_teeth (169) -> teeth (794000)
create implication pink_teeth (77) -> teeth (794000)
create implication teal_teeth (18) -> teeth (794000)
create implication brown_teeth (25) -> teeth (794000)
create implication tan_teeth (495) -> teeth (794000)

Reason: Making all the (non-white) teeth colors imply teeth, because an image with blue teeth definitely has teeth. Also making some other tooth-related tags imply teeth. Cute_fangs -> small fangs might be controversial still, but the last big argument about it I found was 6 years ago, so maybe public opinion has changed? IMO small_fangs and cute_fangs mean the same thing and are used in the same way.
In researching for this I also came across snaggle_tooth and exposed_teeth but I'm not quite sure what to do about them. Should snaggle_tooth imply exposed_teeth and then exposed_teeth -> teeth? maybe both tags are too vague and should be aliased away? Dunno

(Shoutout to topic #32942 and topic #25566 covering small_fangs and big_fangs -> fangs and bared_teeth -> teeth)

EDIT: The bulk update request #3588 (forum #350460) has been approved by @slyroon.

cloudpie said:
create alias cute_fangs (27884) -> small_fangs (52)

What exactly qualifies as "small fangs"? Fangs aren't really that big to begin with, it may be better to alias small_fangs -> fangs.

And I always took cute_fangs to essentially be when a character has a snaggle_tooth with a chibi- or child-like appearance. But the majority of times I see the tag, it's just someone thinking cute+fangs = cute_fangs (even though cute is invalid for being too subjective, so treating cute_fangs the same way is also invalid).

cloudpie said:
In researching for this I also came across snaggle_tooth and exposed_teeth but I'm not quite sure what to do about them. Should snaggle_tooth imply exposed_teeth and then exposed_teeth -> teeth? maybe both tags are too vague and should be aliased away? Dunno

exposed_teeth should probably be aliased to teeth. When teeth are exposed, you can see them and you tag teeth, and whenever you see teeth to tag them, they have to be exposed_teeth. They're the same thing.

watsit said:
exposed_teeth should probably be aliased to teeth. When teeth are exposed, you can see them and you tag teeth, and whenever you see teeth to tag them, they have to be exposed_teeth. They're the same thing.

The exposed_teeth wiki says it's for when a character's teeth naturally stick out of their mouth, even when the mouth is closed (or barely open in such a way that would normally not show teeth). Seems poorly named though

Removed the iffy ones to turn this into just a colors BUR

Said iffy ones were:
imply fangs -> teeth
alias cute_fangs -> small_fangs
imply big_teeth -> teeth
imply small_teeth -> teeth
unimply baring_teeth -> teeth

All looks good now without those others. Those can always be thrown into another BUR instead of holding up stuff that's not so controversial.

The bulk update request #3588 (forum #350460) has been approved by @slyroon.