The tag implication #43693 talking_to_another -> dialogue has been rejected.

Reason: talking_to_viewer already implicates dialogue, so why not the same with talking_to_another?

EDIT: The tag implication talking_to_another -> dialogue (forum #331162) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

post #3148185 post #3026159 post #3229045

There might not be any visible dialogue despite the characters clearly talking to each other.

The bulk update request #2262 is active.

remove implication talking_to_viewer (30397) -> dialogue (516061)

Reason: post #2695679 post #2319256

As bitWolfy indicated above, the act of talking doesn’t always involve dialogue.

Perhaps we should also unalias talking from dialogue?

EDIT: The bulk update request #2262 (forum #331258) has been approved by @slyroon.

Ugh, that's an annoying exception. Talking_to_viewer -> dialogue is probably 99.9% accurate on a tag with over 10k posts.

crocogator said:
Ugh, that's an annoying exception. Talking_to_viewer -> dialogue is probably 99.9% accurate on a tag with over 10k posts.

I agree. I’ve encountered lots of other situations like this… smiling at viewer -> looking at viewer is another one. It’s quite rare that a character smiling at you is not also looking at you, but it happens occasionally. It’s annoying.

I wish we had a way to keep an otherwise valid implication in place, but with a way to exempt those rare few cases where it isn’t valid. Something like if tag_a, but NOT tag_b, apply tag_c. Tag_b in this case would have to be something arbitrary like talking_without_dialogue or maybe silent_talking. That’s probably wishful thinking, though.

crocogator said:
Ugh, that's an annoying exception. Talking_to_viewer -> dialogue is probably 99.9% accurate on a tag with over 10k posts.

Yeah, but at the very least, talking_to_viewer animated usually does not involve any dialogue. With some exceptions.

The tag implication talking_to_another -> dialogue (forum #331162) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

bitwolfy said:
Yeah, but at the very least, talking_to_viewer animated usually does not involve any dialogue. With some exceptions.

...... Wait, dialogue can't be used for voice acting? I figured the dialogue tag could be used for voice_acted posts with real spoken words, as opposed to just moaning or something. I guess the wikis disagree though

crocogator said:
...... Wait, dialogue can't be used for voice acting? I figured the dialogue tag could be used for voice_acted posts with real spoken words, as opposed to just moaning or something. I guess the wikis disagree though

I mean, the wikis are not set in stone.
... especially since I was the one to add the line about dialogue to voice_acted, apparently.

In my opinion, dialogue is fine with its current definition.
It's different from text in that it explicitly denotes words being spoken, but might not be inside a speech_bubble.
Perhaps, we could have a separate tag for spoken dialogue?

bitwolfy said:
I mean, the wikis are not set in stone.
... especially since I was the one to add the line about dialogue to voice_acted, apparently.

In my opinion, dialogue is fine with its current definition.
It's different from text in that it explicitly denotes words being spoken, but might not be inside a speech_bubble.
Perhaps, we could have a separate tag for spoken dialogue?

While we’re at it, maybe also a tag for the act of talking itself, whether or not there’s actually any dialogue?

The bulk update request #2262 (forum #331258) has been approved by @slyroon.