Tag Implication: hand_on_hat -> hat

Implicating hand_on_hat -> hat.

Reason: It's in the name.

What if it isn't a hat, but a visor (post #424385)? Also what if it was a helmet instead of a hat (post #782322 can't really say for sure it's a helmet, but since she is wearing armor, it is more likely than a hat)?

NWF_Renim said:
What if it isn't a hat, but a visor (post #424385)? Also what if it was a helmet instead of a hat (post #782322 can't really say for sure it's a helmet, but since she is wearing armor, it is more likely than a hat)?

We can make suitable variants of hand_on_hat to fit what the item is on.

Don't quite see the necessity in making endless specific variants when a single tag could cover them all in this case.

NWF_Renim said:
Don't quite see the necessity in making endless specific variants when a single tag could cover them all in this case.

In this case, if the issue with the tag is that its too general for the implication, making more specific variants fixes that issue.

Nobody is going to search hand_on_visor it's ridiculous and splitting a tag into a billion unintuitive variants just to push through an implication that we don't need is insane.

Log said:
Nobody is going to search hand_on_visor it's ridiculous and splitting a tag into a billion unintuitive variants just to push through an implication that we don't need is insane.

It is unintuitive and its not worth pushing an implication over it, I agree.