Implicating object_head → for_a_head
Link to implication

Reason:

I was debating this to myself but I figured I'd put this up for review by you all:

"for a head" is a tag for creatures with heads that are unusual and/or aren't living or not heads at all. (aka animal heads and object heads). While originally I felt it should be aliased to object head, I realized people applied this to animal heads as well as object heads; basically anything with an odd head.

Ergo, I thought that what actually might fare better is making object head and animal head imply for a head, as they're relatively similar in concept minus one involving inanimate objects as faces while the other has animal heads.

Related implications

• animal head → for a head
• penis head → object head
• penis head → penis creature

Related aliases

• dickhead → penis head
• tv head → object head

Thoughts? Is this idea good? Should we perhaps alias it to object head instead? Or perhaps make it a disambiguated tag?

facelessmess said:
...heads that aren't heads (aka animal heads and object heads).

So animal heads aren't heads now? Or are there images of characters with entire animals for heads that I'm not aware of?

+1 to the grouping term.

BlueDingo said:
So animal heads aren't heads now? Or are there images of characters with entire animals for heads that I'm not aware of?

+1 to the grouping term.

Ah apologies let me rephrase: animal heads are animal heads on otherwise humanoid bodies, aka they're creatures with heads that are unusually and unexpectedly animal, with the rest of the body pretty much not fitting the head whatsoever, which is what I meant by "not heads" (should have used "unusual" lol). For example:

post #54641 post #1276497

Lmao my bad on the phrasing

facelessmess said:
Ah apologies let me rephrase: animal heads are animal heads on otherwise humanoid bodies, aka they're creatures with heads that are unusually and unexpectedly animal, with the rest of the body pretty much not fitting the head whatsoever, which is what I meant by "not heads" (should have used "unusual" lol). For example:

post #54641 post #1276497

Lmao my bad on the phrasing

No worries, we all make mistakes. Something else worth considering in the meantime.

post #1250207

BlueDingo said:
No worries, we all make mistakes. Something else worth considering in the meantime.

post #1250207

i think that specific example would fall under "for a head" but not necessarily object head nor animal head, since animal head is an animal's head unexpectedly on an unfitting body while object head involves inanimate objects

it's kind of like how with tagging implications dogs are canines, but not all canines are dogs. so not all "for a heads" will be either animal or object heads, but animal and object heads in themselves are "for a head"