[bulk] Colored Bowties + Teeth

create implication bowtie -> bow
create implication red_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication blue_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication yellow_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication green_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication black_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication white_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication purple_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication orange_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication brown_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication grey_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication beige_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication pink_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication lavender_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication polka_dot_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication polka_dot_bowtie -> polka_dot
create implication sharp_teeth -> teeth
create implication clenched_teeth -> teeth
create implication fang_out -> fang
create implication fangs -> teeth
create implication fang -> tooth
create alias spiked_teeth -> sharp_teeth

Link to request

1. A bowtie is a bow. It's even stated in the wiki page here.
2. Just some color implications ^-^

3. Should be clear, I think :).

create implication fang_out -> fang

-1
topic #11796
topic #10583

create implication fangs -> teeth

I know teeth is useless as-is, but at least keep it to rows of teeth instead of everything.

create implication fang -> tooth

tooth really should be restricted to individual units like post #1550753 or post #1640231. Otherwise, what's the point? It's just more tag noise.

Rest is fine.

I don't see why more "tag noise" would be negative in any way.
Because shouldn't images be tagged as good and complete as possible and then it doesn't come to me why we should reject this proposal. This means if one search for tooth he/she will get a much wider variety of posts and therefore an implication does make sense^^. Same thing for fangs and teeth.
For the first thing: Ok^^.

EDIT I know what you mean while I was tagging a tagme post. So yes, you're right because in some cases you can see a fang but also a full smile showing teeth^^. So I go with you there :).

You should really separate out the fang stuff into a separate request.

albert said:

You should really separate out the fang stuff into a separate request.

I sorted them out. Should be fine now?

The bulk update request #489 has been approved.

BUR #20010 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication diagonal-striped_bowtie -> diagonal-striped_bow
create implication diagonal-striped_bowtie -> bowtie
create implication diagonal-striped_bow -> diagonal_stripes
create implication diagonal-striped_bow -> bow

Related. Missing bowtie implication.

The bulk update request #20010 (forum #254644) has been approved by @evazion.