Tag Implication: licking -> tongue

Implicating licking -> tongue.

Reason: You can't lick something without one.

Doesn't mean the tongue has to be visible. -1

If the tongue isn't visible then how do you know if something is being licked?

I suppose if the action was obscured by something in the foreground, if it was facing away from the user, or off screen it wouldn't qualify for tongue, but then it'd be hard to argue for it qualifying for licking either, since we generally require things to be visible to be tagged.

Maybe if there was an example of something being licked inside the mouth, it would apply? I wouldn't tag such a post licking either though.

A brief survey of licking failed to find any examples where tongue wouldn't be appropriate.

What if the tongue is visible but perhaps not visible enough to warrant being tagged?

post #626475, the tongue is rather small in the image, even though though licking is occurring.

Hmm, I reviewed that post, and in my opinion I would consider the tongue notable enough for tagging in cases like that, especially since it is the direct focus of the image.

It's been mentioned before though that I generally like to tag things thoroughly.

Shinjidude said:
A brief survey of licking failed to find any examples where tongue wouldn't be appropriate.

I did a brief search of licking -tongue and came to a similar conclusion.

NWF_Renim said:
What if the tongue is visible but perhaps not visible enough to warrant being tagged?

post #626475, the tongue is rather small in the image, even though though licking is occurring.

I would probably tag that post with tongue.

I agree with reese and Shinjidude on this one. I can see why an objection is raised (I thought of bringing this up in the past, and the same uncertainty came to mind), but I don't really think there's any chance of a counter-example that would really require the licking tag without tongue (I've never come across one at least). In any case, the licking -tongue tags need to have tongue added to them even if we don't decide to go with an implication.

I do not really have an opinion on Reese's proposal. However...

葉月 said:

Doesn't mean the tongue has to be visible.

The first things that came to my mind when I read that:

The "camera angle" can indeed be such that no tongue is seen but the character clearly has mouth contact with something that is usually licked...

Well, if it is ice cream, sometimes it gets bitten instead. If we are talking about cunnilingus, sometimes the clitoris is being sucked with little or no tongue use. You cannot really tell what is going on out of your sight.

葉月, can you give more unambiguous examples to back up your vote? I tried, and that was where I ended up.

I completely agree with NWF here. I mean, post #567895, really truly does that need tongue? Blargh.

If people are determined to tag exceptionally minor elements of an image, the least they can do is do it manually, no?