The tag implication #49113 talking_feral -> dialogue has been rejected.

Reason: talking_feral = [feral + dialogue] with the dialogue coming specifically from the feral.

See also topic #36789

EDIT: The tag implication talking_feral -> dialogue (forum #354523) has been rejected by @savageorange.

I feel that talking_feral can also apply to posts with animated + voice_acted ferals.

The tag implication talking_feral -> dialogue (forum #354523) has been rejected by @savageorange.

Yeah, you're right. I just used the 'Reject' button to cancel this implication, hope that's the correct way to do that.

...Is voice acted dialogue really not applicable for the dialogue tag? why? this makes no sense to me and seems terrible for searching. People searching for dialogue want to find characters talking, what's the point of excluding auditory dialogue when other ways of showing dialogue like pictographics count?

The wiki calls it a "gray area"?

cloudpie said:
...Is voice acted dialogue really not applicable for the dialogue tag? why? this makes no sense to me and seems terrible for searching

The wiki calls it a "gray area"?

any talking a character in a scene does should be considered dialogue, whether that's voice_acted, in text, or in pictographics.

if it's music playing on a radio or something something similar it's not.

sipothac said:
any talking a character in a scene does should be considered dialogue, whether that's voice_acted, in text, or in pictographics.

That's what I thought - should voice_acted be removed from the "grey areas" section of the wiki then?
and wouldn't this implication be valid then?

cloudpie said:
That's what I thought - should voice_acted be removed from the "grey areas" section of the wiki then?
and wouldn't this implication be valid then?

Personally I would say yes. I know that if I searched "dialogue" I would definitely want voice acted dialogue included

The bulk update request #6440 is active.

create implication talking_feral (3155) -> dialogue (463626)

Reason: If sipothac is right, then this implication should be valid, shouldn't it?

I personally believe dialogue should absolutely include voice acting and thus this implication should be valid

EDIT: The bulk update request #6440 (forum #389738) has been approved by @slyroon.

cloudpie said:
and wouldn't this implication be valid then?

uhhh... maybe? as long as we consider all forms of parsable speech to be dialogue, yes. I'm not sure where stuff like singing goes, though, I'd... assume that it counts.

cloudpie said:
The bulk update request #6440 is active.

create implication talking_feral (3155) -> dialogue (463626)

Reason: If sipothac is right, then this implication should be valid, shouldn't it?

I personally believe dialogue should absolutely include voice acting and thus this implication should be valid

Yeah, voice acted dialogue is still dialogue, hell I'd say voice_acted should imply dialogue rather than trying to define them as two separate things, when they aren't realistically. Though I could see voice_acted being applied to like character grunts and stuff where dialogue doesn't actually fit.

definitelynotafurry4 said:
Though I could see voice_acted being applied to like character grunts and stuff where dialogue doesn't actually fit.

Yeah, I don't think voice_acted should imply dialogue for this reason. But voice acting that *is* dialogue should be eligible for the dialogue tag lol

cloudpie said:
...Is voice acted dialogue really not applicable for the dialogue tag? why? this makes no sense to me and seems terrible for searching. People searching for dialogue want to find characters talking, what's the point of excluding auditory dialogue when other ways of showing dialogue like pictographics count?

The wiki calls it a "gray area"?

It's a gray area because all of our tagging around audio is. This site wasn't built around audio, it was built around visuals. Our policies and tagging tend to show that.

donovan_dmc said:
It's a gray area because all of our tagging around audio is. This site wasn't built around audio, it was built around visuals. Our policies and tagging tend to show that.

I feel like eventually the site should catch up to existing in 2024, not 2007.

cloudpie said:
...Is voice acted dialogue really not applicable for the dialogue tag? why? this makes no sense to me and seems terrible for searching. People searching for dialogue want to find characters talking, what's the point of excluding auditory dialogue when other ways of showing dialogue like pictographics count?

The wiki calls it a "gray area"?

You see, the funny thing is that the dialogue wiki listed voice_acted as something distinct and not to be confused with.
That distinct definition was there about a year ago when this was suggested, but since then voice_acted has gradually crept into being a "grey area" in its current definition.

Luckily for us though, the voice_acted wiki still retained its distinctive definition (i.e., not to be confused with dialogue, used in static images to denote text that is being spoken aloud).
On the other hand, voice_acted should be where words are spoken through sound instead of text.

We used to have two distinct tags here, and one should never be confused with the other.

thegreatwolfgang said:
You see, the funny thing is that the dialogue wiki listed voice_acted as something distinct and not to be confused with.
That distinct definition was there about a year ago when this was suggested, but since then voice_acted has gradually crept into being a "grey area" in its current definition.

Luckily for us though, the voice_acted wiki still retained its distinctive definition (i.e., not to be confused with dialogue, used in static images to denote text that is being spoken aloud).
On the other hand, voice_acted should be where words are spoken through sound instead of text.

We used to have two distinct tags here, and one should never be confused with the other.

that's kind of a dumb definition for voice_acted because it excludes non-word vocalizations, moans and the like are still voice acting.

also, what's the point of making this distinction? what utility could having the tags function like this possibly serve?

edit: also, that definition would include TTS and AI voices, both of which are decidedly _not_ voice acting.

sipothac said:
that's kind of a dumb definition for voice_acted because it excludes non-word vocalizations, moans and the like are still voice acting.

also, what's the point of making this distinction? what utility could having the tags function like this possibly serve?

edit: also, that definition would include TTS and AI voices, both of which are decidedly _not_ voice acting.

Mainly because there isn't an audio-friendly tagging system in place and most general tags are based around Tag What You See.
Officially, we would only tag sound for posts with audio. However, there is an increasing amount of meta tags (which are not TWYS) that try to provide for more context.

In this case, voice_acted (be it human or AI) is a meta tag while dialogue is a general tag. That is the distinction.
Only if there are subtitles alongside a voice_acted post could you tag it as being dialogue.

I see that there can be some leeway for tags that do not have a meta counterpart (such as moan as you said), but generally we don't tag anything heard.
That is why we don't tag sound_effects or the names of voice actors on sound posts.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Mainly because there isn't an audio-friendly tagging system in place and most general tags are based around Tag What You See.
Officially, we would only tag sound for posts with audio. However, there is an increasing amount of meta tags (which are not TWYS) that try to provide for more context.

In this case, voice_acted (be it human or AI) is a meta tag while dialogue is a general tag. That is the distinction.
Only if there are subtitles alongside a voice_acted post could you tag it as being dialogue.

I see that there can be some leeway for tags that do not have a meta counterpart (such as moan as you said), but generally we don't tag anything heard.
That is why we don't tag sound_effects or the names of voice actors on sound posts.

what do you mean there's not an audio friendly tagging system? you just tag the contents of audible speech the same way you'd tag the content of text, I mean, why wouldn't we do it like that? they're just two different methods of conveying dialogue. like, okay, if a character in a comic calls someone "fag" you'd tag it homophobic_slur and if a voiced character in webm post called someone a "fag" you'd also tag it homophobic_slur, obviously, right? it'd be a mess if we didn't handle it that way...

wait... are you saying that because you interpret "tag what you see" to mean that the contents of audio shouldn't be tagged because you can't "see" sound? because that's an extremely literal method of interpretation of those words that I don't think jives with its intent. TWYS;NWYK is trying to boil down a semi-complex concept onto a few easy-to-understand words, it's essentially saying "don't tag beyond the borders of the post".

definitelynotafurry4 said:
I feel like eventually the site should catch up to existing in 2024, not 2007.

The site is focused on visual art, not audio work, so our tags largely reflect what's visually in the post. Stuff people want to see, not necessarily what can be heard. We accept posts based on their visual qualities, not their audio qualities. That's nothing to do with being in 2007 vs 2024, that's just the focus of the site. Additionally, we try to avoid tags pulling double-duty. Written dialog and spoken dialog are two separate things, and someone searching for one shouldn't get the other (it possible to have written dialog in animations, and spoken dialog in a non-animated slide-shows (though this latter tends not to be accepted due to being a low-effort visual edit of a comic or something with unnecessary audio added), and it's possible for an animation to have both, so animated isn't a functional way to separate them).

watsit said:

Written dialog and spoken dialog are two separate things, and someone searching for one shouldn't get the other

Then should we have a spoken_dialogue and have dialogue act as written dialogue? voice_acted is not necessarily spoken dialogue.

snpthecat said:
Then should we have a spoken_dialogue and have dialogue act as written dialogue? voice_acted is not necessarily spoken dialogue.

Given that e6 is a visually-oriented site, I'm not sure if it's worth being too specific with the types of voice acting. But if such a thing is to be tagged, it'd make sense as a separate spoken_dialogue tag.

thegreatwolfgang said:
You see, the funny thing is that the dialogue wiki listed voice_acted as something distinct and not to be confused with.
That distinct definition was there about a year ago when this was suggested, but since then voice_acted has gradually crept into being a "grey area" in its current definition.

Luckily for us though, the voice_acted wiki still retained its distinctive definition (i.e., not to be confused with dialogue, used in static images to denote text that is being spoken aloud).
On the other hand, voice_acted should be where words are spoken through sound instead of text.

We used to have two distinct tags here, and one should never be confused with the other.

I agree with sipothac that this is a pointless distinction that helps nobody and is bad for searching :P people searching for dialogue probably want to see all kinds of dialogue. We can have subtags if needed (although imo dialogue voice_acted is probably enough)

sipothac said:
wait... are you saying that because you interpret "tag what you see" to mean that the contents of audio shouldn't be tagged because you can't "see" sound? because that's an extremely literal method of interpretation of those words that I don't think jives with its intent. TWYS;NWYK is trying to boil down a semi-complex concept onto a few easy-to-understand words, it's essentially saying "don't tag beyond the borders of the post".

Like I said, there is some leeway when it comes to tagging based on audio.
However, I'd rather adhere to a strict policy of TWYS than to try and skirt around it to see how far can I go with tagging audio.

As far as I can see for this case, there are two distinct tags to choose from, one allocated specifically for text while the other specifically for sound.
This BUR chooses to ignore the sound-based one completely, when it is there for a reason (i.e., being an alternative to TWYS).

cloudpie said:
I agree with sipothac that this is a pointless distinction that helps nobody and is bad for searching :P people searching for dialogue probably want to see all kinds of dialogue. We can have subtags if needed (although imo dialogue voice_acted is probably enough)

If you feel that it is pointless, do suggest an alias for voice_acted —> dialogue since we are now including audio-based posts.
Searching for sound dialogue would work just as well, I'd imagine.

snpthecat said:
Then should we have a spoken_dialogue and have dialogue act as written dialogue? voice_acted is not necessarily spoken dialogue.

dialogue voice_acted, dialogue text, dialogue pictographics.

I don't know why we'd need specific tags for specific mediums of dialogue. having it work like this is the most logical.

thegreatwolfgang said:
If you feel that it is pointless, do suggest an alias for voice_acted —> dialogue since we are now including audio-based posts.
Searching for sound dialogue would work just as well, I'd imagine.

That's not what I meant. Voice acting CAN include dialogue, but it can also just be moans/grunts/other vocal sounds.

sipothac said:
dialogue voice_acted, dialogue text, dialogue pictographics.

I don't know why we'd need specific tags for specific mediums of dialogue. having it work like this is the most logical.

Are pictographics really supposed to be tagged dialogue on their own?

dsco said:
Are pictographics really supposed to be tagged dialogue on their own?

As far as I'm aware yes, if the pictographics indicate that characters are talking
post #4552896 post #4544668

I feel like we might just. Need staff to clarify at this point lol

To me 'pictographics used in a speech bubble' seems pretty clearly understandable as an instance of dialogue. Maybe wikis would need to be slightly adjusted, but framing it in that way makes a lot of sense to me.

sipothac said:
dialogue voice_acted, dialogue text, dialogue pictographics.

I don't know why we'd need specific tags for specific mediums of dialogue. having it work like this is the most logical.

Seems reasonable. So I think the original implication must still be inappropriate, since a talking_feral could be talking via any of those three modes. This is an example of why I think we could benefit from a formalized tag suggestion system ('you're tagging X? Then you probably want to tag also 1+ of Y,Z, or W')

To make those searches work better, dialogue -text -pictographics -voice_acted (22k posts) would also need to be addressed. Suspect it's entirely made up of missing text taggings.

savageorange said:
So I think the original implication must still be inappropriate, since a talking_feral could be talking via any of those three modes.

...but all three of those modes would still be dialogue, so the implication still works.

followup question: does character speech actually need to be understood to be dialogue, or would the speech just need to be understood to be dialogue to be tagged as such, that is to say: "would simlish speech be dialogue?".

like, does this post contain dialogue?: post #2080311

they're talking to each other they seem to understand each other but in reality it's gibberish.

Dialogue that is perceived as communicating an idea can be thought of as conversational dialogue.

In context of the full wiki page, I think it is correct to classify the above post as having dialogue. The communication is not just through body language, and it seems to be understood, so surely it communicates ideas.

savageorange said:
In context of the full wiki page, I think it is correct to classify the above post as having dialogue. The communication is not just through body language, and it seems to be understood, so surely it communicates ideas.

Let's see this in the context of sound/voice_acted posts.

• 1) What about feral characters who can be audibly understood as speaking in English when communicating between their own species, but just make animal_noises when perceived by humans (e.g., Remy from Ratatouille, Blue from Rio)? Technically, they are a taking_feral since they can speak in English between their own kind, but is that the purpose of the tag though?

• 2) If an sound-based post featured a feral speaking English through inner_monologue (e.g., Garfield speaking like in the comics through audible thought_bubbles). Do we still consider them as a talking_feral? Technically, we the viewers can hear and understand what is being said, but nobody in-universe actually does.

What I have just listed breaks the "What should not be treated as dialogue?" part of the dialogue wiki.

thegreatwolfgang said:

• 1) What about feral characters who can be audibly understood as speaking in English when communicating between their own species, but just make animal_noises when perceived by humans (e.g., Remy from Ratatouille, Blue from Rio)? Technically, they are a taking_feral since they can speak in English between their own kind, but is that the purpose of the tag though?

TWYS, so, if the feral character is not shown communicating through speech in the post, the post's not talking_feral.

thegreatwolfgang said:

• 2) If an sound-based post featured a feral speaking English through inner_monologue (e.g., Garfield speaking like in the comics through audible thought_bubbles). Do we still consider them as a talking_feral? Technically, we the viewers can hear and understand what is being said, but nobody in-universe actually does.

no, if it's not considered dialogue it shouldn't be considered talking_feral.

also, Garfield is normally drawn as an anthro, so he wouldn't count anyway, but whatever.

sipothac said:
TWYS, so, if the feral character is not shown communicating through speech in the post, the post's not talking_feral.

no, if it's not considered dialogue it shouldn't be considered talking_feral.

Well, they are. One between their own kind and the other between the viewer/other animals, in English.
I would certainly classify that as a talking_feral through since it is "depicting a feral character demonstrating the ability to speak."
So, you are saying we should not tag what we hear?

sipothac said:
also, Garfield is normally drawn as an anthro, so he wouldn't count anyway, but whatever.

post #2625912

thegreatwolfgang said:
Well, they are. One between their own kind and the other between the viewer/other animals, in English.
I would certainly classify that as a talking_feral through since it is "depicting a feral character demonstrating the ability to speak."

if two feral characters are communicating, then yes, it'd be talking_feral.

Garfield being able to form thoughs that can be interpreted by the audience is not the same as speaking, I'd treat it as his thoughts are being translated into a form we can understand because Garfield is the perspective character.

The bulk update request #6440 (forum #389738) has been approved by @slyroon.