Implicating tiny_wings → wings
Link to implication

Reason:

Tiny wings seems highly misused. I would have expected those miniature hand-sized wings, but it seems that even "Standard" (not-large) wings get tagged as tiny.

To clarify, by "Miniature hand sized wings," I meant like post #540759

Furrin_Gok said:
To clarify, by "Miniature hand sized wings," I meant like post #540759

wings_as_accessories

parasprite said:
wings_as_accessories

I'm just saying, there should be a difference between small_wings and tiny_wings.

EDIT: What in the... Apparenly "Small Wings" contains smaller wings than "Tiny wings" does. How does that even work!?

Furrin_Gok said:
I'm just saying, there should be a difference between small_wings and tiny_wings.

EDIT: What in the... Apparenly "Small Wings" contains smaller wings than "Tiny wings" does. How does that even work!?

Seeing as there isn't really a anatomical distinction we can really make, I would think that small_wings for both is the best we could do to keep from having confusion later on. Barely any are tagged as it is and the distinction isn't really that clear.

Here's what I've got:

general: small_wings

Wings that are small. Generally they don't go past the shoulders (or widest part of the body) and usually look either impractical or impossible for normal flight. More used for decoration than anything.

• Frequently used with head_wings.
• Not to be confused with head_fin. [I just threw this in there for the heck of it, it might not even make that much sense]

See also:

• wings
• etc.

Those are still used interchangeably, so yeah, maybe just alias tiny_wings to small_wiings? In any case, those should be implicated to wings. tiny_wings -wings currently nets a lot of hits.

I've made the following changes:

• Alias: tiny_wings -> small_wings (approved)
• Implication: small_wings -> wings (approved)