Implicating grin → smile
Link to implication

Reason:

The site wiki itself says that a grin is "defined as a smile [...]"

Grinning and Smiling can be two different things, depending on what emotion you're showing.
Smiling is, in its purest, a way of showing happiness or joy, where as grinning is more of a way of showing yourself being cocky or "faking" a smile.

There's also the different of when you smile, you don't show your teeth.
When you grin, you do show your teeth.

Yeah, and they also tend to have different kinds of pictures behind them in case of solo characters. Not seeing the added value here.

Good points; I originally deferred to the tag description but I personally agree regarding the nuances between the two words.

Edit: just noticed that the less common tag evil_grin is implied to smile; should this get unimplicated too?

engageforth said:
Edit: just noticed that the less common tag evil_grin is implied to smile; should this get unimplicated too?

Good catch, that's an even weirder implication to smile than just a regular grin. It definitely should go.

engageforth said:
Edit: just noticed that the less common tag evil_grin is implied to smile; should this get unimplicated too?

Not sure. In forum #160784 I proposed this:

Parasprite said:
Though an implication from evil_grin -> grin -> smile might also be something to consider.

However, I'm less sure than I was then. While the words are very similar in common usage, I don't think that similarity translates to tags very well.

Here's what I see:

Option 1

• grin
• evil_grin <- evil_smile - It's probably more practical to alias this one, since it's probably closer to what we want to tag.
• smile
• rape_face

Option 2

• smile
• grin
• evil_grin <- evil_smile - See option 1
• rape_face

Thoughts?

So option 1 basically means an evil_grin --> grin implication _{(or alias? Not sure how all this asterisk code is supposed to be interpreted :P)} , and then leaving smile and rape_face alone? Cause that sounds decent to me.

Jugofthat said:
So option 1 basically means an evil_grin --> grin implication _{(or alias? Not sure how all this asterisk code is supposed to be interpreted :P)} , and then leaving smile and rape_face alone? Cause that sounds decent to me.

I use nested lists for implications and to show tag relationships. For instance:

• weapon
• polearm
• ranged_weapon
• gun
• pistol
• sword
• bastard_sword
• scimitar
• and so on...

Oh, so then a square (triple asterisk) after a clear dot (double) means an implication to an implication, like gun implying ranged_weapon implying weapon. Right, got ya.

I'd previously already gotten the hang of the asterisk > double asterisk thing, but didn't know you could put in three or even four with new results.

Jugofthat said:
Oh, so then a square (triple asterisk) after a clear dot (double) means an implication to an implication, like gun implying ranged_weapon implying weapon. Right, got ya.

I'd previously already gotten the hang of the asterisk > double asterisk thing, but didn't know you could put in three or even four with new results.

They get boring after the 3rd or 4th deep, but you can actually keep adding to them indefinitely.

parasprite said:

(I'll be amazed if this renders properly)

•   A                        
•    a                     
•    a                   
•     a                
•      a             
•    h           
•       \/     
•      /|\     
•    o       
•         
•       
•