The tag implication #67297 tusks -> exposed_teeth is pending approval.

Reason: Tusks should always be considered as exposed teeth, I believe.

The people saying No should look up what a Tusk is. They are teeth and being extra-oral (i.e. exposed) is one of their defining traits. If there's already some agreed upon arbitration, I'd like to see that. The wiki for exposed_teeth directly mentions that tusks is an intended tag to be under the umbrella.

nin10dope said:
The people saying No should look up what a Tusk is. They are teeth and being extra-oral (i.e. exposed) is one of their defining traits. If there's already some agreed upon arbitration, I'd like to see that. The wiki for exposed_teeth directly mentions that tusks is an intended tag to be under the umbrella.

The reason I (and I imagine the others) voted no is because exposed teeth is a poorly named and poorly defined tag with questionable utility.

IMO it should just be aliased away to teeth.

nin10dope said:
The people saying No should look up what a Tusk is. They are teeth and being extra-oral (i.e. exposed) is one of their defining traits. If there's already some agreed upon arbitration, I'd like to see that. The wiki for exposed_teeth directly mentions that tusks is an intended tag to be under the umbrella.

You cannot always rely on what the wiki says (since anybody can just edit it without discussion) or follow it to the teeth (no pun intended); e.g., there is a reason claws and talons are separated even though they are both technically "claws".
You have to make a judgment based on how viable the change is and if it is even going to be practical if implemented.

The biggest issue I can see here is whether or not we should imply it together, even if it is accurate.
When people search for exposed_teeth, they probably expect to see rows of pearly whites and not a random elephant's tusks.

However, there could also be a misunderstanding that this is similar to clenched_teeth, which is the deliberate exposure of one's otherwise hidden teeth while exposed_teeth is only meant for posts that depict teeth that are exposed 24/7 by default.

exposed_teeth as a tag seems O.K. to me. The wiki entry states that these are teeth that are always visible regardless of a character's expression and are physically impossible for them to hide. We have similar umbrella structures for other anatomical features, and there is value in being able to search for this type of anatomy to find cool designs or art references.

The main issue with the tag exposed_teeth is that it is not self-explanatory. All teeth are technically exposed when visible, and the only way to understand the tag's intended meaning is to read its wiki page entry. There is likely a better name for the same umbrella concept that biologists have defined. However, the tag can be renamed separately, and I think updating the name would be better than rejecting an implication whose logic is sound.

This has a tentative thumbs-up from me, pending discussion about another name for the same idea of teeth that cannot be concealed.

Edit: How about unconcealable_teeth? It's a bit of a mouthful (teehee), but the name explains its intended meaning better than exposed_teeth.

thegreatwolfgang said:
You cannot always rely on what the wiki says (since anybody can just edit it without discussion)

I did take this into account before posting, so I checked the history of that particular tag and it's been very stable and uninterrupted for well over a year by someone I often see in tag wikis. I didn't specify but everything I said before mentioning the tag wiki is from knowledge of actual tusks.

song said:
exposed_teeth as a tag seems O.K. to me. The wiki entry states that these are teeth that are always visible regardless of a character's expression and are physically impossible for them to hide. We have similar umbrella structures for other anatomical features, and there is value in being able to search for this type of anatomy to find cool designs or art references.

The main issue with the tag exposed_teeth is that it is not self-explanatory. All teeth are technically exposed when visible, and the only way to understand the tag's intended meaning is to read its wiki page entry. There is likely a better name for the same umbrella concept that biologists have defined. However, the tag can be renamed separately, and I think updating the name would be better than rejecting an implication whose logic is sound.

This has a tentative thumbs-up from me, pending discussion about another name for the same idea of teeth that cannot be concealed.

Edit: How about unconcealable_teeth? It's a bit of a mouthful (teehee), but the name explains its intended meaning better than exposed_teeth.

I have to disagree about the ambiguity of the intended mean of exposed_teeth. (of course this is coming from a native english speaker). Specifically calling them exposed implies that they are assumed to be hidden. For tusks and teeth in general, this assumption is based on teeth growing from inside the body. I don't like that replacement idea, because even tusks can be concealed, even if it's not by the mouth/lips.

I like the exposed teeth name, but wouldn't mind changing it to unconcealable teeth, unveiled teeth, uncoverable teeth, etc..

I do think tusks should be englobed by the exposed teeth tag. If someone wants to create a new tag to help differentiate tusks from things like this, they can.

But regardless, the tag exposed teeth does have utility, and the logic behind the request is correct, so I think the implication should go through. If a rename is necessary, it can be done afterward in another discussion, why not.

I think renaming it is for the best since it could also mean "exposing one's teeth by opening their mouths", even if the wiki doesn't say that.

However, the question comes to whether or not it would be accurate to call tusks as whatever the new tag name should be (e.g, imply tusks -> unconcealable teeth, unveiled teeth, uncoverable teeth, etc.).

Honestly tusks should just imply teeth since that's what they are

romanicyte2 said:
If someone wants to create a new tag to help differentiate tusks from things like this, they can.

To be fair that image doesn't have tusks, just teeth and horns or whatever else you wanna call those spikes