The tag implication #48947 candlelight -> candle has been rejected.

Reason: You can't really have light from a candle without a candle.

EDIT: The tag implication candlelight -> candle (forum #353023) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

Unless the candle itself isn't visible, while the candlelight is (which could be indicated by being a dim, yellowish/orange glow placed in a scene that would indicate being from candles).

watsit said:
Unless the candle itself isn't visible, while the candlelight is (which could be indicated by being a dim, yellowish/orange glow placed in a scene that would indicate being from candles).

Yeah you're right, I realized this a few minutes after posting.

watsit said:
Unless the candle itself isn't visible, while the candlelight is (which could be indicated by being a dim, yellowish/orange glow placed in a scene that would indicate being from candles).

But it would be against TWYS without a visible candle.

dubsthefox said:
But it would be against TWYS without a visible candle.

Reasonable inferences are allowed in a number of cases. There are plenty of instances where you can tag penetration despite not seeing penetration, and you can tag a clothed character as male or female given their body and facial structure despite not being able to see any of their sexual characteristics (breasts/genital arrangement).

fluffermutt said:
Reason: You can't really have light from a candle without a candle.

post #1462783

The tag implication candlelight -> candle (forum #353023) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.