Is that really something people would expect to crop up when looking for images under the blush tag? It seems like a completely different visual element to me.
Posted under General
Implicating spoken_blush -> blush.
Reason: What's being spoken.
Updated by cleartailcat
We already have similar ones for spoken heart and spoken sweatdrop, so I figured this was just more of the same.
I had thought of the spoken_sweatdrop and spoken_heart tags as well a little after I had replied, but they didn't seem quite the same to me. The heart and sweatdrop tags classify more of icon/symbol that appears, but the blush tag really more categorized a state of the character's skin (typically face).
Just something that I noticed as well is that the images under the spoken_blush also have the characters typically exhibiting a normal facial blush as well, which is unlike spoken_heart or spoken_sweatdrop where the heart or sweatdrop is typically only present in the speech bubble. I don't know if that observation would favor for or against an implication, but I do think it shows that images under spoken_blush typically contain two visual elements (character's facial blush and their speech bubble blush). Linking them with an implication then would remove this information that there are two things present in the image, and likewise would prevent one from being able to split them (such as searching spoken_blush -blush).
I was thinking something similar, in that heart or sweatdrop refers to the presence of the icon so that being in a speech bubble would not affect the fact that you need the implicated tag.
Whereas spoken_blush indicates the //// symbol in a speech bubble while blush refers to rosy cheeks or a reddening face with or without the use of the slashmarks.
For example, post #847535, where kyubey has a spoken blush, but being kyubey, doesn't actually blush.