phone-over-face implications

BUR #42413 has been rejected.

create implication phone_over_face -> holding_phone
create implication phone_over_face -> covering_face

I have just created phone over face to tag a certain posture that hides one's face with a smartphone, usually seen in mirror selfies. This request addresses the obvious implications of the tag.

Not very sure if it should also imply selfie or mirror selfie.

b0okm4rk said:

Not very sure if it should also imply selfie or mirror selfie.

Someone can hold their phone over their face even when not taking any picture, so those can't be implied on principle.

hasu_no_tokimeki said:

Someone can hold their phone over their face even when not taking any picture, so those can't be implied on principle.

Makes sense.

A character could have their phone over their face but not holding it (ie, lying with the phone on top of their face, or using magic to make it float).

BUR #43352 is pending approval.

create implication phone_over_face -> covering_face
create implication phone_over_face -> phone

Seems obvious. Addresses the raised issue of floating phone.

I also edited the wiki to remove the mention of holding phone and generalized it to phones, not just smartphones.
Not sure if it's a good idea to suggest tagging holding phone and floating object in lieu of above.

Is there a need for a mirror selfie holding phone over face pose tag? This seems like what phone over face was going for from the initial wiki description. But now it's more generalized and not a pose tag.
Seems like 3 tags minimum right now, as mirror_selfie holding_phone phone_over_face

This tag has a lot of stuff like post #9486738, post #9450967, post #9412909. Do we consider this to be enough to fall under covering face?

Does post #8294973 count as phone over face?

A phone, usually a smartphone, directly in front of the face, fully or largely obscuring the facial features.

If it does, the first BUR can’t go through since the phone isn’t being held.

There’s also post #8148217, which is divided in panels. In the second one, the phone is over the face but isn’t being held. The holding phone tag only applies because of the first panel, not as an implication of the phone over face tag itself. to explain my downvote and showing more than hypothetical stuff

nonamethanks said:

This tag has a lot of stuff like post #9486738, post #9450967, post #9412909. Do we consider this to be enough to fall under covering face?

I tagged the last one, but looking at the wiki examples and reading "fully or largely obscuring the facial features" throws me off a little. Maybe it should be "fully or partially", considering the first two posts were tagged by the tag creator and I wouldn’t say the face is "fully or largely" obscured.

As for covering face, I’m not sure how much a face has to be obscured. There’s posts with fully hidden faces and then there’s post #9537329 or post #9531774 where the face is pretty much visible, or post #9289692 in which it’s fully visible. Does covering face apply to these three?

Edit: Covered face also exists, perhaps phone over face can imply that instead. The wiki states:

A person's face is obscured by something. It can be the entire face or just partially, such as over the eyes or over the mouth.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

nonamethanks said:

This tag has a lot of stuff like post #9486738, post #9450967, post #9412909. Do we consider this to be enough to fall under covering face?

I'd say yes unless someone wants to retag the posts where the face isn't half or mostly covered with a new subtag.
However, I suggest editing phone over face to specify generally covering the face instead of covering the majority of the face to match covering face, to allow BUR #43352.

As for covering face, I’m not sure how much a face has to be obscured. There’s posts with fully hidden faces and then there’s post #9537329 or post #9531774 where the face is pretty much visible, or post #9289692 in which it’s fully visible. Does covering face apply to these three?

post #9289692 is still intentional covering/obscurring the face. the covering face wiki doesn't specify that it has to be obscurred from the viewer's POV.

Is there a need for a mirror selfie holding phone over face pose tag? This seems like what phone over face was going for from the initial wiki description. But now it's more generalized and not a pose tag.

And to be clear, I support creating this pose tag, but would like to hear other's opinions on it.

Also, covering face and covered face should probably be aliased.

The bulk update request #42413 (forum #360941) has been rejected by @b0okm4rk.

I rejected my BUR and upvoted BUR #43352.

aster1a said:

I tagged the last one, but looking at the wiki examples and reading "fully or largely obscuring the facial features" throws me off a little. Maybe it should be "fully or partially", considering the first two posts were tagged by the tag creator and I wouldn’t say the face is "fully or largely" obscured.

Good point. I'll edit the wiki accordingly.

notfrontloaded said:

Is there a need for a mirror selfie holding phone over face pose tag? This seems like what phone over face was going for from the initial wiki description. But now it's more generalized and not a pose tag.

And to be clear, I support creating this pose tag, but would like to hear other's opinions on it.

Yes, that was exactly what I initially thought when I created the tag. I also agree that phone over face sounds more like a general tag than a pose tag. Personally, I am yet to see the need for a dedicated pose tag given the current size of the phone over face tag (~500 posts).