Topic: Tag Alias: cute_fang -> cute_fangs

Aliasing cute_fang → cute_fangs
Link to alias

Reason:

Singular -> plural

post #918651 post #960137 post #986080

I think it's a kind of a style to only show one fang, so the singular may be better. That said I would shed no tears if more people like the plural

I personally don't think there should be a separate tag for them, but (I mention this mostly since I'm responsible for creating the cute_fangs tag in the first place) I have absolutely no preference either way.

We don't keep singular/plural separate like this so LGTM.

Approved

parasprite said:
We don't keep singular/plural separate like this so LGTM.

Approved

I would think that singular would be the better tag to use. The idea of a singular fang being added as "Cute" just sounds more likely than two.

Furrin_Gok said:
I would think that singular would be the better tag to use. The idea of a singular fang being added as "Cute" just sounds more likely than two.

Seconded.
Alternately, rename this to something like small_fangs. 'Cute' is vague, and as far as I can see, at least third of posts under fangs would need that tag.

Genjar said:
Seconded.
Alternately, rename this to something like small_fangs. 'Cute' is vague, and as far as I can see, at least third of posts under fangs would need that tag.

small fangs is not the best option because fangs can be small without being the kind of fang the cute fangs tag is for.

This tag is so.. useless!

"cute" is too subjective.
"small" is too subjective as well.

It's not fangs that are cute, but the character.

If I would go for a specific feature, then I would describe it as single_fang. And where there's more than one, it should simply be tagged as fangs. Since the description of cute_fangs currently says that it's used for one or two fangs, it means that all the instances with two fangs should be changed to fangs.

If people want to find images where there's only fangs and no teeth displayed, then they can easily do so with fangs -teeth

Delian said:
This tag is so.. useless!

"cute" is too subjective.
"small" is too subjective as well.

It's not fangs that are cute, but the character.

If I would go for a specific feature, then I would describe it as single_fang. And where there's more than one, it should simply be tagged as fangs. Since the description of cute_fangs currently says that it's used for one or two fangs, it means that all the instances with two fangs should be changed to fangs.

If people want to find images where there's only fangs and no teeth displayed, then they can easily do so with fangs -teeth

The tag is not useless. Small stubby fangs are an easy way of making a character cuter. It's extremely common in japanese art, so much so that some girls get dental surgery to make their eyeteeth more prominent.

Thirtyeight said:
The tag is not useless. Small stubby fangs are an easy way of making a character cuter. It's extremely common in japanese art, so much so that some girls get dental surgery to make their eyeteeth more prominent.

yeah this. the tag is especially meant for tiny triangular fangs that are not meant to look realistic or scary but rather cute. while the word "cute" in tag is subjective, the tag's purpose is not subjective at all.

So then, you proposals are:

small_stubby_fangs?

common_japanese_fangs?

tiny_triangular_fangs?

unrealistic_and_not_scary_fangs?

Well, even those are better than "cute", because cute means absolutely nothing.

I know what the tag is trying to express, but it has an unfortunate and useless name right now. That's why I'm proposing for it to be aliased to single_fang, so that it can at least serve some purpose objectively. Well, I guess I should make a new thread for it.

Actually the system doesn't allow me to suggest an alias because of a currently existing alias. Ha.

How exactly should it be tagged, anyway? Do these belong under the tag?:

post #660382 post #313574 post #31625 post #1016449

Genjar said:
How exactly should it be tagged, anyway? Do these belong under the tag?:

post #660382 post #313574 post #31625 post #1016449

No, I don't think so. The "cute fang" has a somewhat specific design. Short, blunt, just barely visible through the mouth.

Here's a couple examples:
http://i.imgur.com/2DI6WjN.jpg
https://avvesione.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/nisemonogatari-05-karen-angry-childish-justice-cute-fang.jpg

post #74783 post #1015717

I think the main point is that there shouldn't be other teeth (or teethlike features) present.

The point really was that it felt like there should be one tag for images like these:

post #573960 post #873195 post #978915 post #638170 post #848127 post #855201

And it felt inappropriat to use it for images like THESE:

post #920576 post #1014903 post #1010697 post #1007886 post #1005780 post #1004283 post #994526

Hence I created the cute_fangs tag. Make of that what you will.

FWIW, yes I put post #1016449 firmly in the cute_fangs category.

Genjar said:
How exactly should it be tagged, anyway? Do these belong under the tag?:

post #660382

The first one, yes. It's a single visible fang.

Circeus said:
FWIW, yes I put post #1016449 firmly in the cute_fangs category.

That one's got several fangs... It doesn't feel like it fits into the cute fang category, but I suppose I'm just stuck in thinking of one or two.

You know what the difference between fangs and teeth is, right?

So explain to me why fangs -teeth can't replace this tag? (Ignore the posts that are missing the teeth tag).

Not to mention that fangs -teeth contains 21800 posts so it finds waaaaaay more "cute_fangs" posts than cute_fangs ever will.

Delian said:
You know what the difference between fangs and teeth is, right?

So explain to me why fangs -teeth can't replace this tag? (Ignore the posts that are missing the teeth tag).

Not to mention that fangs -teeth contains 21800 posts so it finds waaaaaay more "cute_fangs" posts than cute_fangs ever will.

fangs -teeth cant replace it because cute fangs is specific type of fangs. its not about the amount of fangs. the fangs -teeth would cover every single image where character has only fangs visible, it would not work for searching for characters with specific type of fangs.

here. i illustrated what sort of fangs the cute fangs tag is for. your fangs -teeth search would bring up both of those examples so its not particularly helpful for looking up ONLY images with teeth like in the cute fangs example.

What you drew are snake fangs. So then.. fangs -teeth -snake -saberteeth would suffice. Am I wrong? Is there any post on the first page of this search string that would not be considered as cute_fangs?

Delian said:
What you drew are snake fangs. So then.. fangs -teeth -snake -saberteeth would suffice. Am I wrong? Is there any post on the first page of this search string that would not be considered as cute_fangs?

Snake fangs are long, curved, and hollow. They can also retract. Cute fangs are very small, nubby (not necessarily sharp, but definitely not to such other extents), and will never look hollow even including artist's freedom. They also look cute.

Delian said:
What you drew are snake fangs. So then.. fangs -teeth -snake -saberteeth would suffice. Am I wrong? Is there any post on the first page of this search string that would not be considered as cute_fangs?

yeah no. replacing tag for specific type of teeth with really long and obscure tag searches like fangs -teeth -snake -saberteeth which almost fills the tag search limit of regular user (and still does not work because it would hide snakes with cute fangs and images with multiple characters that contains characters(s) with cute fangs and character(s) with other type of teeth) is bad idea. it benefits absolutely nobody and makes searching specific content hard.

Delian said:
What you drew are snake fangs. So then.. fangs -teeth -snake -saberteeth would suffice. Am I wrong? Is there any post on the first page of this search string that would not be considered as cute_fangs?

Believe it or not, despite Cute being a subjective term, the term cute_fang is not. People understand what it means.

Mutisija said:
yeah no. replacing tag for specific type of teeth with really long and obscure tag searches like fangs -teeth -snake -saberteeth which almost fills the tag search limit of regular user (and still does not work because it would hide snakes with cute fangs and images with multiple characters that contains characters(s) with cute fangs and character(s) with other type of teeth) is bad idea. it benefits absolutely nobody and makes searching specific content hard.

I could say the same, that cute_fangs doesn't benefit anyone, because no one is gonna tag it (because it's too subjective and too badly described) and no one is gonna search for it (because it would return too few posts). As for my search string not working, that's the problem of the site now, isn't it. It's like saying.. we should add a male_renamon tag, because it's otherwise impossible to find it with male renamon which would return a sea of male on female renamon posts. It's the site's problem and I don't see why this tag should get special treatment, considering it's actually much easier to find it than some other stuff that's not searchable due to site's limitations.

• If you want to see fangs, then you search for fangs
• If you want to see only fangs, which is basically what cute_fangs is, then you search for fangs -teeth
• If you don't like seeing snake fangs, then you search for fangs -teeth -snake
• etc..

Generally, fangs -teeth should be close enough to return most of the posts that you want to see, which only needs 2 tags. Yeah, it's not ideal, but what is. Perhaps what we could add is snake_fangs so that it would be easier to filter out those types of fangs.

The only real argument that I can see for the existance of this tag is the fact that.. current site limitations make the search fangs -teeth miss a fair amount of posts with multiple characters.

But is the tag really worth keeping? Who's going to tag it? And if in the future, character-based tagging is realized, then the site limitations would be solved and there would be no more reason to keep it.

I'm confused as to why you feel "cute fangs" are subjective when its been demonstrated that the "cute fang" is distinct in it's design. You ask who would tag it? I would, as would anyone who is familiar with japanese style art. The tag was created presumably for those of us who enjoy characters with cute fangs, and its useful for allowing us to find such.

The name. Find a name that doesn't contain the word "cute" or any word related to a "personal opinion". That's all I'm asking :D I simply don't want this site full of tags such as hot_pussy, cool_wings, fat_cock, awesome_tail, lovely_hair, dank.. etc. Do I need to explain why?

Well, and update the tag wiki so that one can draw a clear line when, and when not to use this tag.

Delian said:
The name. Find a name that doesn't contain the word "cute" or any word related to a "personal opinion". That's all I'm asking :D I simply don't want this site full of tags such as hot_pussy, cool_wings, fat_cock, awesome_tail, lovely_hair, dank.. etc. Do I need to explain why?

Well, and update the tag wiki so that one can draw a clear line when, and when not to use this tag.

Well, here is the trope definition as the first link Yahoo gave me. Anyone else wanna go find informative external information to apply to the wiki?

Interestingly enough, we are the second result when searched with "cute fang meaning". Guess we use it more than other sites.

Delian said:
The name. Find a name that doesn't contain the word "cute" or any word related to a "personal opinion". That's all I'm asking :D I simply don't want this site full of tags such as hot_pussy, cool_wings, fat_cock, awesome_tail, lovely_hair, dank.. etc. Do I need to explain why?

Well, and update the tag wiki so that one can draw a clear line when, and when not to use this tag.

I believe I understand your objection now. You feel that because "cute" is subjective, a "cute fang" must also be subjective. Is this correct?

Thirtyeight said:
I believe I understand your objection now. You feel that because "cute" is subjective, a "cute fang" must also be subjective. Is this correct?

No, and I know what you're going to say. My answer to you is: Even if it's only in the name, it's still wrong. Because this means you're expecting every user to have memorized wiki of every tag on the site.

Delian said:
No, and I know what you're going to say. My answer to you is: Even if it's only in the name, it's still wrong. Because this means you're expecting every user to have memorized wiki of every tag on the site.

Then I fear I do not understand. I feel like you are underestimating people's familiarity with the concept. Users do not need to have the wiki memorized to understand the tag anymore than they need to for any other tag. Its simple, straightforward, and extremely common.

Delian said:
No, and I know what you're going to say. My answer to you is: Even if it's only in the name, it's still wrong. Because this means you're expecting every user to have memorized wiki of every tag on the site.

They have the ability to check the wiki, in case they doubt themselves. It is a simple click of a ? beside the tag name, and they can search for it first to avoid purposely tagging it to check the wiki.

Thirtyeight said:
I feel like you are underestimating people's familiarity with the concept.

Or perhaps you're overestimating them.

The concept of cute_fangs has no name in English. The term/trend in Japanese is "yaeba," (八重歯, literally meaning "doubled/multilayered tooth"), altho that's for humanoid anime characters.

The name that we have given to it is not something that's generally seen outsite this site. While the concept is recognized, the name that we have given it, is not, and I don't think "cute" is the best term to describe it.

Arguments about every user being able to check the wiki is a really bad one. Every user is pretty much forced to check wiki to see if this is actually this concept because the word "cute" in the name doesn't have any objective meaning.

Perhaps if the tag had a better name, posts like
post #1010303 post #857430 post #990253 post #864106
wouldn't get tagged with cute_fang. (Or should they?)

Anyway, how about..

simplistic_fangs
undetailed_fangs
unrealistic_fangs
snaggle_fangs

Delian said:
Arguments about every user being able to check the wiki is a really bad one. Every user is pretty much forced to check wiki to see if this is actually this concept because the word "cute" in the name doesn't have any objective meaning.

It's not any different for teeth. Don't even get me started on the fact that buckteeth is implicated to teeth and yet fangs are apparently not supposed to be tagged with teeth.

Also, someone needs to clean out that tag and add something to the wiki about it.

Delian said:
Or perhaps you're overestimating them.

The concept of cute_fangs has no name in English. The term/trend in Japanese is "yaeba," (八重歯, literally meaning "doubled/multilayered tooth"), altho that's for humanoid anime characters.

The name that we have given to it is not something that's generally seen outsite this site. While the concept is recognized, the name that we have given it, is not, and I don't think "cute" is the best term to describe it.

Arguments about every user being able to check the wiki is a really bad one. Every user is pretty much forced to check wiki to see if this is actually this concept because the word "cute" in the name doesn't have any objective meaning.

Perhaps if the tag had a better name, posts like
post #1010303 post #857430 post #990253 post #864106
wouldn't get tagged with cute_fang. (Or should they?)

Anyway, how about..

simplistic_fangs
undetailed_fangs
unrealistic_fangs
snaggle_fangs

That some people can't understand a tag with a specific meaning doesn't mean it's invalid. People are constantly confusing pants_pull and pantsing, yet pants_pull remains a very valid tag.

Your first example was never even TAGGED with cute_fangs in the first place, the third one is clearly because the user didn't know the proper term (mandibles), which is excusable. A normal nidorino has a a fang, and so does this one, but it's so little it could really go either way.

The only example where the tag was used and is truly dubious is the fourth one (which I would have tagged with sharp_teeth myself, FWIW).

Thirtyeight said:
I feel like you are underestimating people's familiarity with the concept.

Are we?
I asked about four examples earlier, and got three different answers about how those should be tagged.

We already have more than enough tags that need constant clean up. I suggest keeping the singular (...snaggle_fang?), and aliasing the plural away to fangs. That, at least, would get tagged consistently.

Genjar said:
Are we?
I asked about four examples earlier, and got three different answers about how those should be tagged.

No, you didn't. You got the same answers and then one guy who thinks canines don't count as teeth.

Beanjam said:
No, you didn't. You got the same answers and then one guy who thinks canines don't count as teeth.

One vote for not tagging it for any of the four, one for only applying it to post #1016449, and another for only post #660382.

Three different answers.

Genjar said:
One vote for not tagging it for any of the four, one for only applying it to post #1016449, and another for only post #660382.

Three different answers.

My "Vote" was "I'm probably just stuck in this backwards way of thinking though, so I'm undecided actually." Nothing specifically against #1016449, so not "only #660382."

Genjar said:
One vote for not tagging it for any of the four, one for only applying it to post #1016449, and another for only post #660382.

Three different answers.

No, you interpreted it that way because every answer but mine left it open for interpretation. There is absolutely a way to define this tag in a way that is even less subjective that the teeth tag, you just saw someone say "subjective" and that triggered your hateboner for "subjective" tags. I could cherrypick four different posts and people would tag them with teeth just as differently because it is just as ambiguously defined.

hateboner.. I like that word. Could make it a thing by tagging it on posts where a character is angry and erect at the same time.

Delian said:
hateboner.. I like that word. Could make it a thing by tagging it on posts where a character is angry and erect at the same time.

Wow, you are pretty transparent.

Beanjam said:
No, you interpreted it that way because every answer but mine left it open for interpretation. There is absolutely a way to define this tag in a way that is even less subjective that the teeth tag, you just saw someone say "subjective" and that triggered your hateboner for "subjective" tags.

Then try defining it in such way, instead of complaining and lazing around. Who knows, maybe your definition will actually be usable.

Yes, I dislike subjective tags. Because I'm usually the one who has to put in the work when they invariably become problematic. And after wasting literally thousands of hours on sorting out tags that should've never even been created, I have very low patience for new ones.

Genjar said:
Then try defining it in such way, instead of complaining and lazing around.

Yes, I dislike subjective tags. Because I'm usually the one who has to put in the work when they invariably become problematic. And after wasting literally thousands of hours on sorting out tags that should've never even been created, I have very low patience for new ones.

I already did. Tack on "no other teeth (or teethlike features) present" to the current definition. Sure some posts that arguably should be tagged with it might not be and some that shouldn't will, but it is a visual phenomena that people will look for, so nuking it out of hand makes no sense.

Also, no one is making you fix this tag any more than they are making you fix teeth. Which really should be fixed since the only time anyone would probably ever use teeth for searching purposes would be in conjunction with other tags.

Beanjam said:
Wow, you are pretty transparent.

Yeah. I don't really have anything smart to say at this time. I provided 4 options as a better name for cute_fangs, but no one (except Genjar) made any choices, so what am I to do.

As far as teeth goes, in my opinion, teeth are pretty much compatible with everything. Can have teeth, buckteeth, fangs, and sharp_teeth all at the same time. However, no one has been able to shed light on whether teeth and cute_fangs are compatible or not. And I bet we can have at least 1 page discussing this!

Anyway, I already explained that, the name as it is, is bad, and should be changed, because it's too subjective. A perfect objective definition is one thing. A perfect unambiguous tag name is another. A good tag has both. And this tag currently has neither.