Posted under Tags
Teeth includes posts with teeth that are a singular white rectangle (post #9154863) and teeth that are actually detailed (post #9155262), some users have suggested to create a tag for 'detailed teeth', since its really hard to search for them.
My concern is how to name and define a tag for 'detailed teeth', I thought about names like detailed teeth, realistic teeth or squared teeth and made some favgroups (see below) to make a mass update BUR in case you guys think is a good idea.
I have found 3 different kinds of detailed teeth (I make sure none of these favgroups include sharp teeth):
I don't mind if favgroups "Realistic teeth" and "Grid teeth" are part of this new tag or split them in two different tags.
Also, we have to decide if sharp teeth should be excluded or not, you may not expect sharp teeth when searching for 'detailed teeth', but more often than not sharp teeth are defined, forum #305132. However, you can add -sharp teeth to your search. (or blacklist it if you are blue)
I feel as though teeth should be deprecated in favour of one of (or all of) these alternatives. As I mentioned in response to one of the linked forum posts, teeth seemed like it was intended to be used when they were distinctly drawn but I've seen it being used on anything ranging from a full white fill in the mouth to a 1px line across the top of the mouth.
I don't imagine people who have a fancy for teeth and want similar gratification that they'd get from araragi_karen toothbrush teeth (pretend this just leads to the infamous scene since a few of these posts don't have detailed teeth either) finding post #9619807 where yes they are definitely there but they're not the focus of the image and have no detail besides being an aligned rectangle.
I'd imagine teeth itself is hard to get rid of because of other tags like upper teeth only but then that becomes a whole new discussion of if some of the other teeth-related tags are also padding and should be taken out back. I've seen small tags like this excessively used by tag padders and Related Tags spammers who load their posts up with a bunch of tags, sometimes where they don't even fit, to make it seem like a post is well tagged, only for me to end up removing a boat load of them for being wrong.
I support killing teeth and splitting it across upper/lower, detailed, grid, grin, and sharp. The only kink would be what to call images like post #9620568.
Frankly our current teeth tag is basically like tagging just hair it's too broad to actually give what someone would be looking for and is polluted by a bunch of posts with non-notable teeth and blank white mouths.
zetsubousensei said:
The only kink would be what to call images like post #9620568.
Maybe something like "simple_teeth," akin to tags like simple bird for when teeth aren't detailed/well-defined; though that could lead to tag padding.
BUR #44285 is pending approval.
mass update favgroup:45212 -> grid_teeth
Starting with this because it's easier to define grid teeth
BUR #44286 is pending approval.
mass update favgroup:44350 -> detailed_teeth
This is the favgroup named "Realistic teeth" in forum #371556.
I'm excluding the _(borderline) favgroup just in case (favgroup:45213 only has 20 posts anyways).
BUR #44287 is pending approval.
mass update favgroup:44350 -> realistic_teeth
Alternative BUR, I think this is an option that avoids the potential overlap with sharp teeth.
On the second one, I get the intention is to distinguish, but it seems slightly sketch to consider things like post #7899233 and post #7690250 as detailed or realistic. They sort of stand out (not in a good way) when compared to the other examples. Though perhaps that might be some slight pedantia on my part because it's not like you can tag them with anything else if we reach a hypothetical future where we kill teeth. It's quite the in-between of simple (white shapes) and each tooth or group of them being distinguisable.
WRS said:
On the second one, I get the intention is to distinguish, but it seems slightly sketch to consider things like post #7899233 and post #7690250 as detailed or realistic. They sort of stand out (not in a good way) when compared to the other examples. Though perhaps that might be some slight pedantia on my part because it's not like you can tag them with anything else if we reach a hypothetical future where we kill teeth. It's quite the in-between of simple (white shapes) and each tooth or group of them being distinguisable.
It really depends on the definition of "realistic" teeth. I made that favgroup just looking for posts that resemble the details of real life teeth (mostly divisions to distinguish each tooth, but also gum), it was just a coincidence that a lot of those posts have a very realistic look. Then I moved the ones that "have realistic features, but don't look THAT realistic" to Realistic teeth (borderline), I might have missed some posts but I don't know if it's okay to move them now that some people voted.
If we go for a strict definition of realistic you could even argue that realistic teeth and vampire fangs should be mutually exclusive (which is fine as long as teeth exists, I guess).
