teeth implication (are skin fangs teeth?)

The bulk update request #9706 has been rejected.

create implication tusks -> teeth

I was going to add fang and fangs, but then remembered that skin fang and skin fangs imply them, which... Are they considered teeth?

Personally, I believe teeth should be used when they're clearly visible on the image, as they're in post #5262048. The tag itself has already 205k posts tagged with it, I think adding another implication to it would turn it into a meaningless overpopulated tag.

A tusk sticking out like post #5252677 shouldn't be tagged with teeth, for example.

Edit: Upper teeth and lower teeth implicates teeth and they don't need to be specially prominent to be tagged with, so that argument itself doesn't really apply, but the tusk sticking out is still an obstacle to the implication.

Tusks are, by definition, teeth, but i don't think it's what you want to see when you search for the teeth tag.

The bulk update request #9706 (forum #209730) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

should tusk even be aliased to tusks? fang isnt aliased to fangs for the moe fang, but there is now a decent amount of art with only a single tusk drawn (see female_orc tusks and ryugasaki rene)