Topic: Tag implication: teeth_showing -> open_mouth

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Watsit

Privileged

This isn't always true:
post #6255945 post #6252179

I think teeth_showing should be aliased to teeth. If teeth are showing in an image, they would be visible and tagged teeth, and for teeth to be tagged, they need to be showing in the image and visible.

There is bared_teeth to indicate a character is exposing their teeth to another (or the viewer), as opposed to simply being visible or shown in the image. An implication like this may make more sense for that.

YummyTummySketties

Member

The bulk update request #13572 is pending approval.

create alias teeth_showing (17782) -> teeth (910379) # has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur

Reason:

mouselect said:
The tag implication #71881 teeth_showing -> open_mouth is pending approval.

Reason: To show my teeth I need to open my mouth

Even when their mouth is closed, you can still see their teeth in some cases.
post #6119415 post #6241327

YummyTummySketties

Member

topic #38361

wolfmanfur said:
Immediate -1 from me. Showing_teeth and teeth are functionally different. A single tooth on the floor could count as a teeth for tagging purposes meanwhile showing_teeth is a facial expression made by a character.
They are not the same, it would tantamount to alias grin to teeth.

At most i can see an argument for showing_teeth -> grin or showing_teeth -> bared_teeth, but this, this is ridiculous. It should be an implication.

Imo if you see a single teeth that is not connected to a character, it should have a different tag like "disembodied_teeth" or sth... or mass update teeth to showing_teeth.