[bulk] Pocket Implications

create implication hand_in_pocket -> pocket
create implication hands_in_pocket -> pocket
create implication hands_in_pockets -> pocket

Link to request

I think this really depends on how the pocket tag is operating. If the tag is covering pocket as a standalone visible object in the image, then there are cases where a character can have their hands in their pocket, but an actual pocket isn't visible.

Examples:

• hand in a visible pocket: post #262570
• The pocket actually has a shape and presence in the outfit.
• hand in a nonvisible pocket: post #286447 or post #270564
• The hand just disappears into the garment, no real pocket is visible.

Since this page has no wiki page, I'd say that we should go what is the logical thing and that is letting these implications comes through.
Since if an hand disappears but there is nothing visible, we still know that the hand is inside a pocket.
Otherwise we would use this tag but use something like hand in clothes.
So I'd say +1.

I was thinking the same as NWF Renim. It's dependenf on whether you can actually see a pocket there or not. It could be a large tear in their pants for all we know.

I don't really think that this convinces me since we have some tags that expresses such situation.
There would be the torn_pants or hands_in_pants tags.
If the tagger uses the pocket-tag, then it's pretty clear what the tagger wanted and it's the most common thing that a hand is inside a pocket. If the tagger doesn't think it's not inside a pocket, then it shouldn't be used.

So you're saying that we just go with whatever the tagger thinks it is?

tapnek said:

So you're saying that we just go with whatever the tagger thinks it is?

You know..this tag is pretty this in my eyes: A pocket is something, where one puts their hands in. An going by the name, then it's pretty clear. Otherwise, if we follow you logic, we have to create a tag like hands_in_clothes.
What I wanna say: It's pretty easy to recognize if the pants are torn, or if the hand is supposed to be inside a pocket.

So, like the duck test?

What's that?
EDIt Oh that thing. Well, it's tag what you see I thought.
I'd say: If you don't want this implication, then we should go to redefine this tag to hand in clothes. That would cover both things..visible and "not visible".

If it works like a pocket should work, then it's a pocket. I would go into details about what makes a pocket but I don't feel like elaborating.

tapnek said:

If it works like a pocket should work, then it's a pocket. I would go into details about what makes a pocket but I don't feel like elaborating.

I know this test (only forgot the name).

I don't see the value of pocket being tagged when a pocket is not clearly visible. Don't really think an implication is needed.

The bulk update request #653 has been rejected.