Topic: Tag Implication: mouth_hold -> object_in_mouth

Implicating mouth_hold → object_in_mouth
Link to implication

Reason:

It's kind of difficult to hold an object with a mouth if the object isn't in the mouth (even if only just an edge).

EDIT: The tag implication mouth_hold -> object_in_mouth (forum #282071) has been rejected by @Millcore.

Well they are pretty similar, but If you read closely the description of object in mouth, you can read:

when an individual in the image has an object in, or being placed in their mouth.

This is the only difference I could track, but even if it's only one I think we should keep the tag.
If it's name sounds not intuitive I suggest to rename it.

Dicedude said:
Well they are pretty similar, but If you read closely the description of object in mouth, you can read:

when an individual in the image has an object in, or being placed in their mouth.

This is the only difference I could track, but even if it's only one I think we should keep the tag.
If it's name sounds not intuitive I suggest to rename it.

What? I don't know what you mean, but this is an implication. Both tags are kept, the mouth_hold tag would imply object_in_mouth if this goes through.

Couldn't mouth hold apply to some acts of tail biting? Or even carrying children in the case of a lot of feral animals, such as dogs picking up puppies by their scruffs

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
Couldn't mouth hold apply to some acts of tail biting? Or even carrying children in the case of a lot of feral animals, such as dogs picking up puppies by their scruffs

And micros. That's true. Implication doesn't work because everything you can hold in your mouth isn't an object by e6 tagging rules.

The tag implication mouth_hold -> object_in_mouth (forum #282071) has been rejected by @Millcore.