A sudden platinum upgrade raffle has appeared!

implicate spoken tags to speech_bubble

Posted under Tags

BUR #40780 has been rejected.

create implication speech_stab -> speech_bubble
create implication spoken_anger_vein -> speech_bubble
create implication spoken_blush -> speech_bubble
create implication spoken_ellipsis -> speech_bubble
create implication spoken_exclamation_mark -> speech_bubble
create implication spoken_food -> speech_bubble
create implication spoken_heart -> speech_bubble
create implication spoken_interrobang -> speech_bubble
create implication spoken_musical_note -> speech_bubble
create implication spoken_question_mark -> speech_bubble
create implication spoken_squiggle -> speech_bubble
create implication spoken_sweatdrop -> speech_bubble

A large set of implications which will undoubtedly add speech bubbles where they shouldn't be, I justify this with the overwhelming amount of posts with untagged speech bubbles that date back (almost) 20 years.

I've read this thread and the speech_bubble tag will be heavily inflated but it's a lot more accurate than what we have now and it'll be useful to have all of this in one spot where it can just be made into a tag group or when it's gardened.

AngryZapdos said:

post #6677057 is spoken_heart, but not speech_bubble. This depiction can be used for any of these spoken_x tags; none of them should be implied.

I mostly agree but there is a vast majority of the spoken_* tags that are in speech bubbles. My point with all of this is you're being more accurate than inaccurate by this implication and it can be undone later when a better consensus is reached.

scydrew said:

I mostly agree but there is a vast majority of the spoken_* tags that are in speech bubbles. My point with all of this is you're being more accurate than inaccurate by this implication and it can be undone later when a better consensus is reached.

That's not how this works. If the implication is even slightly inaccurate, it won't work as an implication. It will instead have to be maintained manually.

hasu_no_tokimeki said:

That's not how this works. If the implication is even slightly inaccurate, it won't work as an implication. It will instead have to be maintained manually.

Ah, I'm sorry I wasn't aware.

1