Tag Implication: grin to smile

Shinjidude said:
post #657582 is a smile, just not a friendly smile. Smiles can be malicious, maniacal or aggressive as well as happy. I think the implication was sound.

jxh2154 said:
What makes this not a smile?

The fact we have no tags to distinguish between a friendly smile and any other kind of smile. Previously that distinction existed at least informally in posts which were tagged with grin but not smile, and I have maintained it. Now the implication has killed all this knowledged and lumped everything into a featureless blob.

葉月 said:
The fact we have no tags to distinguish between a friendly smile and any other kind of smile.

I believe this is how smirk and evil_grin came to life. You don't see an unfriendly smile or grin that doesn't imply a certain degree of evil.

葉月 said: The fact we have no tags to distinguish between a friendly smile and any other kind of smile. Previously that distinction existed at least informally in posts which were tagged with grin but not smile, and I have maintained it. Now the implication has killed all this knowledged and lumped everything into a featureless blob.

You did potentially have a year to object. It's not like this was put through immediately - as the one year bump for action implies.

I still don't think grin and smile need to be completely separate. The only potential problem is evil_grin (which should have been getting used for your "grin but not smile" situation) which was temporarily implicated before objections were raised. There are far less of those to re-check if we don't want them to be smiles. In fact we could just mass edit evil_grin -grin -smile, then do a quick run-through of -solo and/or -chartags:1 images to account for images that might have two characters, one smiling/grinning and one evil_grinning.

jxh2154 said:
You did potentially have a year to object. It's not like this was put through immediately - as the one year bump for action implies.

Except I thought we buried this thread because it was resolved and decided not to implicate.

葉月 said: Except I thought we buried this thread because it was resolved and decided not to implicate.

The last comment I'd made was "I'll probably implicate it after that" (but then forgot about the thread) and the four members who chimed in before that all supported the implication.