Aliasing mouth_hold → object_in_mouth
Link to alias

Reason:

They seem to refer to the same thing (a character holding an object with their mouth). object_in_mouth has a wiki page while mouth_hold has about four times the tag count.

EDIT: The tag alias mouth_hold -> object_in_mouth (forum #213792) has been rejected by @SnowWolf.

+1

"Object in mouth" sounds better than "mouth hold" and, like Dingo said, there is a wiki page for the aforementioned tag, so there is no need to move existing wiki content.

Should we also implicate object_in_mouth -> holding_object since object_in_mouth involves holding an object?

EDIT: Also condom_in_mouth -> object_in_mouth.

BlueDingo said:
Should we also implicate object_in_mouth -> holding_object since object_in_mouth involves holding an object?

Since that's the intended use for the tag, sure. +1

BlueDingo said:
EDIT: Also condom_in_mouth -> object_in_mouth.

A condom is an object, so +1 on that too.

I super coincidentally just wrote the wiki for mouth_hold like today or yesterday or something, basing it just on a sample of the images it was already tagged onto. Wondering if there's any meaningfulness to the difference I can see potentially between the two... One could be using the mouth to hang on to something - like a lifted-up shirt held in the lips, and the other could be, I don't know, say some character has a sock stuffed into their mouth or something. I can't really say I see a good reason why those would be different in a way anyone would be specifically looking to search for, but it's sort of an environment that does lend itself to nuance like that.

I suppose a distinction could be made between just holding onto something with your mouth vs. putting something partly/full in your mouth, but it's often hard to tell the difference.

post #1006918 <- This would be holding.

post #797337 <- This could go either way.

What if they're holding a character with their mouth?

post #893795 <- Puppies aren't objects. (Well, technically they are, but... Shut up!)

-1 for alias.
+1 for implication.
If a character have an objet in its mouth, that not necessarily means it is holding this object (e.g. dentist tools).

BlueDingo said:
What if they are holding a character with their mouth?

post #893795 <- Puppies aren't objects. (Well, technically they are, but... Shut up!)

Holding_character + in_mouth may work. If more specificity is needed maybe "mouth_carry" (currently empty) would be better.

The tag alias mouth_hold -> object_in_mouth (forum #213792) has been rejected by @SnowWolf.

Rejected because it's been 6 years and things change. We're not opposed to this concept, but we want to have the conversation again but with a modern understanding. Feel free to submit again later

are things like tails considered an object...? post #507431

but like the above comments states, it can be in mouth instead, so probably a mistag... and a misuse in the wiki...

I don't like how this proposal would have eliminated the already perilously narrow space between "anthro fellating a dildo" and "feral carrying a dildo". See topic #29565. I feel there needs to be a greater recognition in the tags of the dual purpose the mouth serves as a sexual and non-sexual orifice, and frankly the examples in this thread alone are making me think that maybe the object_in_mouth tag should be split up further.