Not smoking if holding a (lighted) cigarette alone.

What? You're not making any sense.

fireattack said:
What? You're not making any sense.

smoking:

The act of lighting up a substance like tobacco and either inhaling or tasting the smoke it emits.

She's only done the former, but not the latter (not to mention her arm's blocking her nose while looking like thinking something else without the intention to actually smoke it). So, it makes perfect sense (lighting up a cigarette doesn't automatically mean someone has to smoke it afterwards).

P.S. If there's a tag for this situation, it should be "holding_cigarette" instead: https://danbooru.donmai.us/wiki_pages/holding_cigarette.html

It's implied

blooregardo said:
It's implied

So, should I remove everything after the "and" in the first sentence of that wiki page (or, alternatively, change the "and" to "or")? Because it isn't implied at all if written like that so explicitly.

Update: edited the wiki to replace the "and" with "or" so that the definition in the wiki won't contradict with under what circumstances the tag can actually be added.

Yes but also it's logical that if she's holding a cigarette she's smoking it (unless she could be holding it for someone else, which is not the case)

The tag wiki isn't bible lmao. It's written by random people that might have just copied it from danbooru or even dictionary like 10 years ago without much thought into it.

Unless it explicitly said something against ambiguousness (like bottomless), we should apply common sense first.

fireattack said:
The tag wiki isn't bible lmao. It's written by random people that might have just copied it from danbooru or even dictionary like 10 years ago without much thought into it.

Unless it explicitly said something against ambiguousness (like bottomless), we should apply common sense first.

So, should I remove that smoking wiki page altogether? Because you said "should apply common sense first", it's essentially useless (so as those wiki pages for other tags that also "should apply common sense first").

I hate to seem like I'm being argumentative cause I'm not I'm just asking a question... but would the fact that it is emitting smoke also count as the object itself smoking? or would that be smouldering? is there a difference between the two?

moonian said:
So, should I remove that smoking wiki page altogether? Because you said "should apply common sense first", it's essentially useless (so as those wiki pages for other tags that also "should apply common sense first").

Wiki is mainly for when things are ambiguous (like edgy cases), or when the tag isn't a common word/knowledge (like symmetrical_docking) so people might want to read about it. It is, by definition, an encyclopedia or dictionary, not necessarily a tagging guide.

So in this particular case, yes it's pretty much useless. Everyone knows what is smoking. There is no confusion. (The part mentioning about other drugs might be useful though.) I don't see why would you want to remove it though -- It's fine as-is.

If we really want to discuss about this particular case, there is no contradiction from the definition on wiki (before your editing) to this image either.

Just because it says "[t]he act of lighting up a substance like tobacco, and either inhaling or tasting the smoke it emits" doesn't mean the second the cigarette isn't attached to the mouth it's no longer smoking. It's not a freakin robot command. Even the most pedantry person wouldn't take it this way.

Actually, changing "and" to "or" makes it worse, it makes things like lighting up an incense sounds like smoking while it's not.

If I'm to be honest... this is not the first time you came up with some ridiculous interpretation of wiki that I didn't see anyone would think that way. I have no idea what's going on and getting pretty frustrated about it.

The whole point of tagging and wiki is to help people use the site. Not to getting into useless argument. If your take, technically correct or not, makes people's life harder (like if someone wants to find this image by general tag, would he/she considers this as smoking or not?), then what's the point?

About "holding_cigarette": if danbooru actually has a tag and distinguishes it from smoking, then sure, it would fall to the above mentioned ambiguousness-related cases and we (they) can totally enforce that "if only holding, it doesn't count as smoking". However:

1. We don't have "holding_cigarette" tags to begin with. No need to split the hair.

2. about 50% of "holding_cigarette" posts there has "smoking" tag too (ref) At the glance you can see most of them don't have the cigarette in the mouth. Which means no one is actually enforcing or following such small difference between the two. It just makes searching stuff harder.

Reminds me of a certain politician when asked if he ever smoked marijuana:

"I tried marijuana and didn't like it and didn't inhale".

Thanks for the input, the wiki page is now deleted (since now "common sense first" prevails).

As for substances other than tobacco - "it's implied", isn't it?

The point of the wiki is to give information about the tag usage, it IS a manual in case someone has any doubt. Not because it's a bit ambiguous it should be completely obscure by deleting the wiki page. I'll rewrite it.

moonian said:
As for substances other than tobacco - "it's implied", isn't it?

Obviously. To solve these kind of questions it needs a wiki page.