Implicating cat_on_head -> animal_on_head.

Reason: Dog_on_head and bird_on_head would need this also.

Should animal_on_head then implicate object_on_head?

One bump.

Done

Hellbus said:
Should animal_on_head then implicate object_on_head?

Not for me.

I don't remember how we've handled other animal/object situations but I guess I'd say no for now.

animal_hug is separate from object_hug. I don't think there are other animal/object cases right now.

Can we implicate all the *_on_head to on_head, and alias object_on_head to on_head? We already have tags like on_back, on_side, on_floor, on_ground, etc.

No, because that would imply a character is standing on their head.

Probably the best we could do if we wanted to make object_on_head even more general than it already is would be to move it to x_on_head. I don't think we have a precedent for that sort of construction though, and it doesn't sound quite as fluent as using an actual word. It does generalize the super general "object" though.

I wouldn't be against keeping animal_on_head separate from object_on_head.

I believe the original intention of the object_on_head tag was to really cover the variety of inanimate objects (biscuits, pumpkins, buckets, computers, etc) that characters are occasionally depicted having balanced on their heads. I don't really recall if it was I who first made the tag or someone else, though I do think I vaguely seem to remember making it.

I wouldn't really care if it was broadened in definition, though I do think it would be advisable to make sure that some of the more common types of things balanced or worn on the head can be easily removed from the broader search without needing some dozens of -tags in the search.

Going with that, I think it'd be worthwhile to change some of the current implications and create some subtags that cover some of the more common types of things worn on the head. Instead of having bra and panties on_head implicate object_on_head directly, it'd be worthwhile to have a subcategory like underwear_on_head and/or clothing_on_head.

Hillside_Moose said:
No, because that would imply a character is standing on their head.

I still don't get this. on_head is not used in this meaning at all, and there's absolutely nothing preventing us from using, y'know, standing_on_head to mean someone standing on their head.

Going by chest_stand tag example, the pose of standing on head would be head_stand.

Maybe it's just my particular line of logic, but if no one will confuse on_head for standing on one's head then fine.

I don't think it's just your logic Hillside Moose, first thing I'd think of with on_head (especially with how the other on_* tags work) would be that the character is standing on their head.

upon_head?

I don't think a super umbrella tag for this is useful at all.
I can't picture people not caring for what the character has on their head as long as there's something. Doesn't compute for me.