The bulk update request #3413 has been rejected.

Reason: The speech bubble wasn't connected to any tree diagram.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3413 (forum #347291) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

They should be aliased instead. They're gratuitously specific, most added largely by one user, and some making no sense ("outline_speech_bubble"? a speech bubble is an outline. "stylized_speech_bubble"? who decides what counts as stylized? "partial_line_speech_bubble" vs "partial_speech_bubble"? how does a "puffy_speech_bubble" differ from a thought_bubble?). There is also speech_bubble_outside_panel, speech_bubble_shadow, speech_bubble_fade_out, speech_bubble_fade_in, ... Ive been intending to find all these variants he keeps making up and making an alias request BUR.

watsit said:
They should be aliased instead. They're gratuitously specific, most added largely by one user, and some making no sense ("outline_speech_bubble"? a speech bubble is an outline. "stylized_speech_bubble"? who decides what counts as stylized? "partial_line_speech_bubble" vs "partial_speech_bubble"? how does a "puffy_speech_bubble" differ from a thought_bubble?). There is also speech_bubble_outside_panel, speech_bubble_shadow, speech_bubble_fade_out, speech_bubble_fade_in, ... Ive been intending to find all these variants he keeps making up and making an alias request BUR.

+1. These are just tags for the sake of tags. If there is a use for them, he can make a thread to argue for them.

I agree with this one:

create implication color_coded_speech_bubble (906) -> speech_bubble (120696)

In fact, we could extend this implication to the various colored coded speech bubbles:
black_speech_bubble (330)
blue_speech_bubble (177)
brown_speech_bubble (26)
green_speech_bubble (61)
grey_speech_bubble (40)
orange_speech_bubble (21)
pink_speech_bubble (62)
purple_speech_bubble (76)
red_speech_bubble (82)
tan_speech_bubble (11)
white_speech_bubble (267)
yellow_speech_bubble (61)

bpedron said:
In fact, we could extend this implication to the various colored coded speech bubbles

+1

It is nice to see someone interested in these tags. <3

Edit: You should remove partial_speech_bubble from the BUR. It is a sketchy thing to imply as a speech bubble. My stylized_speech_bubble tag might not be ready for an implication just yet either.

All of these tags help form a better organization of this big tag, and serve as the counterpart tag to themes that end up getting used for other types of text containers. There may be better names for some of the tags, but the current names should closely approximate what they are for.

bpedron said:
I agree with this one:

In fact, we could extend this implication to the various colored coded speech bubbles:
black_speech_bubble (330)
blue_speech_bubble (177)
brown_speech_bubble (26)
green_speech_bubble (61)
grey_speech_bubble (40)
orange_speech_bubble (21)
pink_speech_bubble (62)
purple_speech_bubble (76)
red_speech_bubble (82)
tan_speech_bubble (11)
white_speech_bubble (267)
yellow_speech_bubble (61)

A colored speech bubble is not the same as a color coded speech bubble.

watsit said:
They should be aliased instead. They're gratuitously specific, most added largely by one user, and some making no sense ("outline_speech_bubble"? a speech bubble is an outline. "stylized_speech_bubble"? who decides what counts as stylized? "partial_line_speech_bubble" vs "partial_speech_bubble"? how does a "puffy_speech_bubble" differ from a thought_bubble?). There is also speech_bubble_outside_panel, speech_bubble_shadow, speech_bubble_fade_out, speech_bubble_fade_in, ... Ive been intending to find all these variants he keeps making up and making an alias request BUR.

It would help your understanding a lot if you tried to message me before forming criticism about tags that you don't fully understand. Many of the concepts you are mentioning are effects that also apply to things that aren't speech bubbles. To make the effect concepts complete, each element that the effect applies to gets its own tag. This keeps the effect tags organized, and they are in great need for organization.

I am most likely going to move speech_bubble_outside_panel into its base tag as I do not have time to focus on expanding the base tag effectively at this time.

partial_line_speech_bubble and partial_speech_bubbleare closely related and arguably part of the same theme. However only partial line speech bubble refers to fully formed speech bubbles. Partially formed ones get tagged under partial speech bubble.

The bulk update request #3440 is active.

Reason: This fixes the problem with the first BUR.

The tags in this BUR attempt to organize the speech bubble themes into the various ways artists depict them. It includes the most basic forms that aren't a common oval, including tags that track the two main ways speech bubbles connect with other speech bubbles.

The shapes of speech bubbles, while sometimes cosmetic are often used to indicate what, and how the information inside the speech bubble is to be interpreted. Many artists use speech bubbles in this way, especially in comics. A properly defined tagset will work wonders in shaping our ability to tag content in comics that is often hard to find in an 120K image tag. In comics, speech bubbles are often one of the most visible, and prominent narrative components, being able to define what makes an image unique is important to me even if it ends up being how they decorate the speech containers.

Not only did I establish tags for common forms, I also establish concepts for forms you would have a really bad time finding any other way except through a tag, such as inward_tail_speech_bubble. This is one of my favorite forms, it elegantly conserves space by utilizing the negative space of the speech bubble.

The last thing I want to point out that thought bubbles are in no way speech bubbles by how we tag them currently. A tag such as puffy speech bubble refers to a speech bubble that sort of looks like a thought bubble. To tag it otherwise would be misleading. Most of these forms may occasionally be present in other types of text containers, but are far less common, and harder to find. The tags labelled as speech bubble, only apply to speech bubbles as they tend to get tagged.

Added tags

• Some base implications that absolutely 100% apply.
• polygonal_speech_bubble - One of the main forms shouldn't be excluded.

Removed tags

• dotted_line_speech_bubble - While true, this is a specific type of speech bubble that could be a part of this BUR, I prefer it not included just yet. There may be a better name for it.
• partial_speech_bubble - It needs more insight into whether it should be called a speech bubble. In terms of maintaining simplicity with how other speech bubble concepts are used, defining it as a speech bubble would be useful. This topic is too complex for this BUR IMO.
• stylized_speech_bubble - This is an experimental tag. It might end up having a formal definition, or its concepts could be placed in more specialized tags. It is very difficult to find concepts that fit into this tag. As some people incorrectly suggest, this is not intended to be a vague tag, but more a tag for speech bubbles with creative themes that I could not find a more descriptive name for at the time. It could be replaced at some point with a better named tag, but for now this topic is too complex for this BUR.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3440 (forum #347983) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

thevileone said:
It would help your understanding a lot if you tried to message me before forming criticism about tags that you don't fully understand. Many of the concepts you are mentioning are effects that also apply to things that aren't speech bubbles. To make the effect concepts complete, each element that the effect applies to gets its own tag. This keeps the effect tags organized, and they are in great need for organization.

You shouldn't presume what I do or don't understand. I'm well aware of what you're trying to do, I just find it incredibly gratuitous. We don't need tags for every possible concept, particularly when only one person is adding them with no indication they add much value. As mentioned before, there's diminishing returns here as you get more and more specific with tags (especially when they add their own ambiguity about where it stops being one and becomes another), and I find most of these well beyond that threshold. We don't need tags to zero-in on specific images, as long as they work to enough to help people find what they're looking for.

Additionally, I find it rather self-aggrandizing of you to go around creating and defining a bunch of tags by yourself, adding them to thousands of posts by yourself according to your own standard, then after thousands upon thousands of uses, declare them good, all without an ounce of discussion. You didn't ask whether those definitions are good, whether they may need adjustment, whether those tag names were good, or whether those tags were warranted in the first place. You just went and did it like you owned the place.

thevileone said:
partial_line_speech_bubble and partial_speech_bubbleare closely related and arguably part of the same theme. However only partial line speech bubble refers to fully formed speech bubbles. Partially formed ones get tagged under partial speech bubble.

If it's not a fully formed speech bubble, it wouldn't be a speech bubble.

The only time I can image these tags being useful is if someone is looking for a specific image and they aren't able to remember many details about it other than the textbox. Even then, the tag won't be consistent because as impressive as TheVileOne's tagging rate is, nobody can cover the entire site by themself. At some point we have to remember that we're not TvTropes for furry art.

watsit said:
We don't need tags for every possible concept, particularly when only one person is adding them with no indication they add much value. As mentioned before, there's diminishing returns here as you get more and more specific with tags (especially when they add their own ambiguity about where it stops being one and becomes another), and I find most of these well beyond that threshold. We don't need tags to zero-in on specific images, as long as they work to enough to help people find what they're looking for.

Well, a number of these tags seem perfectly reasonable to me. For example, heart_speech_bubble - we already bother tagging everything else that has a heart shape, be it eyes or tails or a pattern on clothing or a background item like a pillow. So why not speech bubbles? A heart-shaped speech bubble seems sufficiently distinct to be worth tagging. And some others, like dripping and pointy, also seem distinct enough to tag. I’m not going to comment on each individual tag here, particularly because I rarely even look at comics and so these tags aren’t particularly important to me. I just don’t see a problem with the general concept of subdividing speech bubbles into different types like this.

Perhaps what you both need to do is to try to collaboratively figure out how to organize these tags to maximize their utility rather than taking the all-or-nothing approach of keeping them as-is or aliasing them all away.

scaliespe said:
Well, a number of these tags seem perfectly reasonable to me. For example, heart_speech_bubble - we already bother tagging everything else that has a heart shape, be it eyes or tails or a pattern on clothing or a background item like a pillow. So why not speech bubbles? A heart-shaped speech bubble seems sufficiently distinct to be worth tagging. And some others, like dripping and pointy, also seem distinct enough to tag. I’m not going to comment on each individual tag here, particularly because I rarely even look at comics and so these tags aren’t particularly important to me. I just don’t see a problem with the general concept of subdividing speech bubbles into different types like this.

Perhaps some of them can be useful, perhaps some of them can be tweaked (which, given the mass amount of posts they've already applied the tag to, would need to be checked over to see what they'd still apply to if modified). But as it is, this is an all-or-nothing approach being presented here, with two BURs of implications and no prior attempt to discuss what or which ones may be useful.

This isn't the first time we've had issues like this, where they just unilaterally do something behind the scenes, no prior discussion, then presents it largely as take-it-or-leave-it with little will to change it because they put in so much work. There's also this mess.

thevileone said:
As some people incorrectly suggest, this is not intended to be a vague tag, but more a tag for speech bubbles with creative themes that I could not find a more descriptive name for at the time.

...So, a vague tag, then.

watsit said:
Perhaps some of them can be useful, perhaps some of them can be tweaked (which, given the mass amount of posts they've already applied the tag to, would need to be checked over to see what they'd still apply to if modified). But as it is, this is an all-or-nothing approach being presented here, with two BURs of implications and no prior attempt to discuss what or which ones may be useful.

This isn't the first time we've had issues like this, where they just unilaterally do something behind the scenes, no prior discussion, then presents it largely as take-it-or-leave-it with little will to change it because they put in so much work. There's also this mess.

Be that as it may, it’s entirely beside the point of this thread. Issues you have with TheVileOne’s tagging behavior is best dealt with in DMail or with an admin or whatever, but it’s outside the scope of this thread. What we do have here is exactly what you’re requesting; an opportunity to discuss the value and usage of these tags before implementing them. Yes, the tags exist and the implications have already been requested, but nothing is set in stone until an admin approves it.

Now, I think the only issue I have is that the distinction between pointy speech bubble and localized pointy speech bubble may be superfluous. Beyond that, these tags mostly seem acceptable, in my opinion.

scaliespe said:
Be that as it may, it’s entirely beside the point of this thread. Issues you have with TheVileOne’s tagging behavior is best dealt with in DMail or with an admin or whatever, but it’s outside the scope of this thread. What we do have here is exactly what you’re requesting; an opportunity to discuss the value and usage of these tags before implementing them. Yes, the tags exist and the implications have already been requested, but nothing is set in stone until an admin approves it.

What we have is a couple implication BURs and being asked to vote on it. And on that front, as they contain tags that I feel should be aliased away, so the BURs as-is I see as unacceptable. Especially since TheVileOne's seems to be duplicating a number of the same implications in the first post, which makes it confusing about which to try to get fixed up and support (if either, rather than making yet another competing request). As it is, I have no idea how many tags he's made or will make, until yet another BUR pops up with new tags and no prior discussion, and we go through all this again.

We can try to discuss the tags, but the requests are still here and likely to get in the way if they're approved before we come to a consensus and make a better request. So there's a time element thrust into this now to discuss it and come to some conclusion before they're approved.

scaliespe said:
Now, I think the only issue I have is that the distinction between pointy speech bubble and localized pointy speech bubble may be superfluous. Beyond that, these tags mostly seem acceptable, in my opinion.

conjoined_speech_bubble and shared_speech_bubble seem unnecessarily similar to me, they can be aliased together if the concept is kept. pointy_speech_bubble also seems like it could be easily mistaken for polygonal_speech_bubble, since polygonal shapes have pointy edges (and I doubt people will realize the intended difference when using them). It seems to be polygonal_speech_bubble can be replaced by something like edged_speech_bubble, which have more defined edges instead of being a smooth oval or circle (and would include, squares, rectangles, and other mostly-convex shapes with defined edges); though I can see vagueness about whether rounded edges count, when it stops being 'edged' and is a normal/smooth circular shape).

partial_speech_bubble (not in these BURs, but is one of the many being made) I don't think should be classified as a speech bubble since it's not a bubble (it can be just some straight lines; something like speech_marker would fit better to that kind of thing, IMO).

color_coded_speech_bubble I feel can be supplanted by colored_speech_bubble with color_coded. A specific tag for color coded speech bubbles seems unnecessary to me, and can get confusing when it comes to comics and other multi-page sequences, where individual characters have their own speech bubble color, but some pages have only one character talk.

outline_speech_bubble seems rather ambiguous, as if it could refer to an extra outline around a normal speech bubble, rather than a speech bubble without it's own background and showing what's behind it (which could itself be confusing for sketchy images, or images with a flat color background that matches the background of the speech bubbles). Would speech bubbles that have a bit of translucence to their background with a solid line around it count?

speech_bubble_outside_panel, speech_bubble_shadow, speech_bubble_fade_out, speech_bubble_fade_in, etc, can just go away.

@Watsit Thank you for your constructive message.

watsit said:

conjoined_speech_bubble and shared_speech_bubble seem unnecessarily similar to me, they can be aliased together if the concept is kept. .

I hope you mean linked_speech_bubble, and you are right they are used similarly. Possibly not similar enough though to just merge together. I'd rather not, but it wouldn't be a dealbreaker if they were merged. I spent a lot of time keeping them organized, and finding the perfect names that would isolate the specific differences. I want that effort respected if we have to merge them at some point.

watsit said:

pointy_speech_bubble also seems like it could be easily mistaken for polygonal_speech_bubble, since polygonal shapes have pointy edges (and I doubt people will realize the intended difference when using them). It seems to be polygonal_speech_bubble can be replaced by something like edged_speech_bubble, which have more defined edges instead of being a smooth oval or circle (and would include, squares, rectangles, and other mostly-convex shapes with defined edges); though I can see vagueness about whether rounded edges count, when it stops being 'edged' and is a normal/smooth circular shape).

I have no issue changing the name for this tag. It was a term I had to settle on due and couldn't think of something better. It could be edged_speech_bubble although that term doesn't stand out to me anymore than polygonal. I have been leaning more towards the rounded edges do not significantly change the shape the tag is targeting. It sounds more broad though, as I have been leaving out partially edged examples. (That could be another speech bubble form! :p). We can go with either one, but I think the reason I didn't go with edged in the first place was because it might apply to partial cases.

The pointy ones were always planned to be left out of this tag. I think we should try to leave them out, because they would take over the tag.

watsit said:

partial_speech_bubble (not in these BURs, but is one of the many being made) I don't think should be classified as a speech bubble since it's not a bubble (it can be just some straight lines; something like speech_marker would fit better to that kind of thing, IMO).

The first BUR shouldn't be handled. This is another tag that was fairly experimental. The problem with the partial_x format is that it was difficult to build subconcepts off of. A speech_marker tag and inner_speech_marker for thought bubbles is an appealing idea. Thank you for suggesting it. ATM there might be mostly formed examples in the tag, and perhaps some of them might not fit the spirit of the tag you suggested. Mostly complete speech bubbles tend to be considered speech bubbles anyways. Artists sometimes are sloppy with their line completion.

I'll see what I can do with this idea probably when I am not swamped with other projects as much.

watsit said:
color_coded_speech_bubble I feel can be supplanted by colored_speech_bubble with color_coded. A specific tag for color coded speech bubbles seems unnecessary to me, and can get confusing when it comes to comics and other multi-page sequences, where individual characters have their own speech bubble color, but some pages have only one character talk.

IDK what a colored speech bubble tag would look like. You can have color coding off black and white. There can even be color coding between a speech and a thought bubble. The outline of the speech bubble can be color coded. Would the colored speech bubble tag apply to the outline or the contents? This opens the door for other color coded elements (text) to create false positives. It also means that users wont know of the color coded concept, as it would have to be manually added, but that's a small point. A larger point would be that it would obscure how speech bubbles relate to the color coded concept from the wiki as it could never imply the concept.

IMO, there's too many problems. Until we know what a colored tag would look like, I would not feel comfortable with this.

watsit said:

outline_speech_bubble seems rather ambiguous, as if it could refer to an extra outline around a normal speech bubble, rather than a speech bubble without it's own background and showing what's behind it (which could itself be confusing for sketchy images, or images with a flat color background that matches the background of the speech bubbles). Would speech bubbles that have a bit of translucence to their background with a solid line around it count?

I wasn't sure what to do with this tag. I was going to look at it with more scrutiny when I found the time. It might be better called a translucent_speech_bubble. As for the ones with extra borders, I wasn't sure what to call those as they are called double outline/border speech bubbles in external sources. It would sure be nice to have a name for the double border ones as they are very uncommon.

I could remove this term from the BUR, or we could leave it in and depopulate it at a later time, and decommission the tag name. We would need a new request to add a new speech bubble implication anyways.

watsit said:
speech_bubble_outside_panel, speech_bubble_shadow, speech_bubble_fade_out, speech_bubble_fade_in, etc, can just go away.

I already decommissioned speech_bubble_outside_panel. The shadow tag is an effect tag, we need it as a counterpart tag for other shadow effects. The latter two are experimental tags, I could move them to a set for now, but at some point, animations (particularly animated effects) need to be gone through and organized. I was looking into fade animations and transitions at the time, but I don't know when I will have time to focus on that project again. I'm sure we can get away with more generalized concepts in the future and those tags wont be needed.

thevileone said:
I hope you mean linked_speech_bubble, and you are right they are used similarly.

Well, both linked_speech_bubble and shared_speech_bubble seem a bit gratuitous to me. Especially given cases like
post #3494808
where it's a single character's three heads saying the same thing. Having a specific tag for shared speech bubbles comes across as too specific, when something like shared_dialog for multiple characters saying the same thing could work just fine in place of the latter (which needn't be specific to speech bubbles, as it could also work for dialog boxes and other types of markers for speech/dialog). linked_speech_bubble seems to be such a common minor detail it's not worth tagging, which I could probably make the same argument for conjoined_speech_bubble.

thevileone said:
It could be edged_speech_bubble although that term doesn't stand out to me anymore than polygonal.

Part of the issue I have is that 'polygonal' brings to mind "advanced" shapes like trapezoids, octagons, and that kind of thing, when the majority of uses would likely be more square or rectangular shapes (which are technically polygonal, but it's not the word you really think of for that kind of thing). But squared_speech_bubble or rectangular_speech_bubble are too specific and wouldn't cover those other shapes. So I think edged_speech_bubble works as a compromise, getting the intended idea across of more defined edges instead of being smooth and round without being restricted to specific shapes.

thevileone said:
The pointy ones were always planned to be left out of this tag. I think we should try to leave them out, because they would take over the tag.

Right, but my point is someone may see a rectangular/polygonal/edged speech bubble and go, "that has pointy corners, pointy_speech_bubble sounds appropriate", not realizing that tag is intended for the more scraggly/"toothy" effect on speech bubbles.

thevileone said:
A speech_marker tag and inner_speech_marker for thought bubbles is an appealing idea.

would probably be more congruent, since it better fits a pattern (speech_bubble and thought_bubble for enclosed or mostly-enclosed shapes indicating verbal speech and non-verbal thoughts respectively, with speech_marker and thought_marker for plain lines or mostly open shapes indicating verbal speech and non-verbal thoughts respectively).

thevileone said:
IDK what a colored speech bubble tag would look like. You can have color coding off black and white. There can even be color coding between a speech and a thought bubble. The outline of the speech bubble can be color coded. Would the colored speech bubble tag apply to the outline or the contents? This opens the door for other color coded elements (text) to create false positives.

False positives aren't a problem as long as the search works well enough. Again, the point of searching tags isn't to zero-in on a specific image such that the site returns just the one specific image you're looking for, but to return a set of possibilities in which the particular image you're looking for can be found relatively easily.

thevileone said:
I wasn't sure what to do with this tag. I was going to look at it with more scrutiny when I found the time. It might be better called a translucent_speech_bubble.

could work for a speech bubble that's completely see-through (it would have just the outline, along with any text/iconography of course). translucent_speech_bubble would be for a speech bubble that has its own background, but it's partially see-through (like post #3641307).

thevileone said:
The shadow tag is an effect tag, we need it as a counterpart tag for other shadow effects.

Is there anything wrong with speech_bubble+drop_shadow instead?

thevileone said:
The latter two are experimental tags, I could move them to a set for now, but at some point, animations (particularly animated effects) need to be gone through and organized. I was looking into fade animations and transitions at the time, but I don't know when I will have time to focus on that project again. I'm sure we can get away with more generalized concepts in the future and those tags wont be needed.

It would be better to settle on a definition and use-case first before plastering it around, ideally by discussing it with other users and coming to some consensus beforehand. This "throw it on hundreds/thousands of posts that I think could use it while I make up and change its definition, then act as if it's settled and maybe discuss it after the fact when someone objects" approach really should stop.

watsit said:
Well, both linked_speech_bubble and shared_speech_bubble seem a bit gratuitous to me. Especially given cases like
post #3494808
where it's a single character's three heads saying the same thing. Having a specific tag for shared speech bubbles comes across as too specific, when something like shared_dialog for multiple characters saying the same thing could work just fine in place of the latter (which needn't be specific to speech bubbles, as it could also work for dialog boxes and other types of markers for speech/dialog). linked_speech_bubble seems to be such a common minor detail it's not worth tagging, which I could probably make the same argument for conjoined_speech_bubble.

The shared tags are for multiple characters sharing all kinds of things, including text containers. This is super uncommon, while conjoined speech bubbles are super common. I have a shared dialogue tag as well. Speech bubbles are used for more than just dialogue. Again there are counterpart tags for this concept that need to be taken care of. We shouldn't have incomplete lists of themes.

That is your opinion, and I wont push you on it. I need to have the forms in as complete a list as possible to avoid taggers wasting their time thinking about what to tag something that seems to not have a tag. This is about tagger convenience and having a consistent complete list of distinct forms where we aren't discriminating against any particular form.

watsit said:
Part of the issue I have is that 'polygonal' brings to mind "advanced" shapes like trapezoids, octagons, and that kind of thing, when the majority of uses would likely be more square or rectangular shapes (which are technically polygonal, but it's not the word you really think of for that kind of thing). But squared_speech_bubble or rectangular_speech_bubble are too specific and wouldn't cover those other shapes. So I think edged_speech_bubble works as a compromise, getting the intended idea across of more defined edges instead of being smooth and round without being restricted to specific shapes.

Right, but my point is someone may see a rectangular/polygonal/edged speech bubble and go, "that has pointy corners, pointy_speech_bubble sounds appropriate", not realizing that tag is intended for the more scraggly/"toothy" effect on speech bubbles.

I thought about this, and polygon/polygonal is the most accurate term, and if we want to start organizing different types of polygons, we would build on top of the polygonal tag. I don't think trying to make the tag as vague as possible is the way to go. The idea of the tag is that it does refer to specific shapes. That was always my intention, and over time I realized that the stuff decorating the edges of the container did not matter as much as if it resembles a particular shape or not. There are both round and polygonal form pointy speech bubbles.

Someone might confuse the pointy one, but it wouldn't happen very often. Pointy as a term is used as a alternate term for tapering, and I don't think general corners of rectangles, or squares remind me or that. The name of the pointy one isn't set in stone. It does have other names, bursting_speech_bubble, and shout_bubble would be some of those names. I was trying to stick to terminology that e6 would be familiar with.

watsit said:
thought_marker would probably be more congruent, since it better fits a pattern (speech_bubble and thought_bubble for enclosed or mostly-enclosed shapes indicating verbal speech and non-verbal thoughts respectively, with speech_marker and thought_marker for plain lines or mostly open shapes indicating verbal speech and non-verbal thoughts respectively).

I feel indifferent about this. thought_marker can work too. I will say that it will be easier said to done in separating these stubs from half formed speech bubbles. The partial tag has the benefit of not discriminating by how partial it is, but it also has the limitations I mentioned, which I wanted to address. I will find a way to make it work.

watsit said:
False positives aren't a problem as long as the search works well enough. Again, the point of searching tags isn't to zero-in on a specific image such that the site returns just the one specific image you're looking for, but to return a set of possibilities in which the particular image you're looking for can be found relatively easily.

I feel that tags are a blueprint, and every image has a unique blueprint (or fingerprint rather). In a perfect system, ignoring copyright stuff, we should be able to use a combination of tags to narrow down a search to any one image form. That tag combination would be that images blueprint. This is my tagging philosophy, and not related to this BUR.

I like keeping things organized as well, and try to avoid having tags that do not conform in a way that allows us to group them with their related themes or content. Colored speech bubbles is a much broader theme, and a different theme than color coded. Color coded targets narrative organization, it uses colors as information. That is what is important with the tag.

watsit said:
transparent_speech_bubble could work for a speech bubble that's completely see-through (it would have just the outline, along with any text/iconography of course). translucent_speech_bubble would be for a speech bubble that has its own background, but it's partially see-through (like post #3641307).

We could have a separate tag for each. Although we tend to group them together under a single tag, but narrative elements may be different. It isn't always meaningful that the inside of a shape doesn't have any content, but if it does have some translucency, then it does make sense to have it imply translucent. We can keep them separate in this case. This was all stuff I was planning to go through when I had time.

watsit said:
Is there anything wrong with speech_bubble+drop_shadow instead?

It would be better to settle on a definition and use-case first before plastering it around, ideally by discussing it with other users and coming to some consensus beforehand. This "throw it on hundreds/thousands of posts that I think could use it while I make up and change its definition, then act as if it's settled and maybe discuss it after the fact when someone objects" approach really should stop.

Thank you for suggesting that tag. We still should have it organized by specific types like I am doing with all of these other tags. Why are you so insistent of arbitrarily making some concepts more vaguely structured than other concepts? It is much better to organize everything in the best structure we can manage that specifically outlines all of the specific ways the concept is used. It makes it easy for searching, and makes for more consistent tag infrastructure.

These are massively common concepts we are dealing with. The chances that an extremely common theme is going to have a much rarer attribute is going to be very unlikely. You will get a lot of noise from other extremely common themes that also have that attribute, and all of the less common usages that we would have to make findable as well. The noise from the common usages will make it harder to find the less common usages. As a tagger, I also don't like having no way of removing concepts I am not focusing on as well, and I value that flexibility of being able to take away a concept I am not looking for. I think the same mentality would apply from a searching perspective as well.

I do discuss these ideas with people, just not on the forums. I spend hours discussing these ideas and even more time thinking about them to make sure they are well grounded, and my rational for the topics makes sense and will produce a good tag that will be consistent; that I can reliably use while I am focusing on other tag projects. It is unreasonable to demand the perfect name, and the perfect definition that has to be worked out before a tag is started. It doesn't have to be perfect, right at the start, it can be rough, and the finer implementation details can be smoothed out at a later time.

I am dealing with complex relationships that many will have trouble understanding unless I spend time explaining it out to them. A lot of the time the relationships, and my motives for populating a tag will not be clear on the face, because I am thinking on a much broader scope than just a tag for a speech bubble. I am trying to connect the dots on common themes across every image on the site that have been overlooked. My mission is to achieve clarity on the numerous tags that lack it, and lack of organization is a main cause of lack of clarity.

I don't really have much time to discuss these issues on the forums. Making large forum replies like this one take a lot of my time. The time I need to spend on the forums discussing something is time I can't spend on the mountain of work I chip away at every day.

The bulk update request #3413 (forum #347291) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #3440 (forum #347983) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.