Well, we can talk it what we like. I think we all want to express the same thing.
And it comes pretty handy that the talking tag lacks a wiki page. So we can do that pretty much from scratch.
I like Mikaeri's suggestion.
Posted under Tags
create alias talking -> speech
create implication speech_bubble -> speech
Reasons aforementioned.
Also left out speech stab since I don't think speech stab is necessarily speech.
Mikaeri said:
create alias talking -> speech
create implication speech_bubble -> speechReasons aforementioned.
Also left out speech stab since I don't think speech stab is necessarily speech.
Spoken heart is often paired with speech bubble, do you think that symbols or pictures can be considered speech? I don't think that's intuitive so not sure about that implication.
EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.
EDIT: The bulk update request #1108 (forum #127514) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
Updated by DanbooruBot
Mikaeri said:
Spoken_* tags don't implicate speech bubble, I believe.
That's because it's used with thoughts too:
EB said:
I was under the impression that "thought" items get the spoken_* tags because there is no other way to tag them and would be inconvenient to do separate tags when there are so many already.
And things like post #2627020 count as (in this example) spoken musical note (the wiki even specifically includes them) but are not speech bubble... although I guess you could suggest that a spoken musical note is speech... as this implication would put things like singing under speech anyway.
And what about blank speech bubble cases?
Hmm, I think I've changed my mind on what to consider speech. I'd say technically all implied speech (which includes spoken hearts, spoken musical notes, etc) should also be tagged speech. It would also include blank speech bubble, as the action is really more important than the presence of text in my opinion. It's just that speech can and will often appear with text, so speech can be used as the tag to represent that. As for the thought bubbles, I'm in favor of moving those over to things like "thought heart" or "thought musical note", etc.
Coming back to what tag to use, the problem with using a tag like 'conversation' (2+), 'monologue' (1), and 'dialogue' (2), is that even though they're somewhat well defined under their definitions, it's kind of difficult to tell which one is happening in a given image sometimes. A person might be speaking to the viewer, for example, or talking to someone or some people that are out of frame -- so it's not intuitive to tag those specific tags with a lack of information present.
As for the thought bubbles, I'm in favor of moving those over to things like "thought heart" or "thought musical note", etc.
Couldn't those fall in the imagining category, like imagined_heart, imagined_musical_note, etc?
Coming back to what tag to use, the problem with using a tag like 'conversation' (2+), 'monologue' (1), and 'dialogue' (2), is that even though they're somewhat well defined under their definitions, it's kind of difficult to tell which one is happening in a given image sometimes.
Unfortunately, there aren't many alternatives to use as an all-encompassing 'speech' tag because looking up synonyms for 'talking' netted me either those words you used or for different types of conversation (communicating, babbling, discussing, quip, and so on) which are specific to the type of dialogue and context being conversed.
Maybe there could be subset tags that can be implicated to speech to denote if it's either conversation/dialogue between 2+ people, monologue, imagining, and whatever other speech-related tags are worth creating.
A person might be speaking to the viewer, for example, or talking to someone or some people that are out of frame -- so it's not intuitive to tag those specific tags with a lack of information present.
For the first instance, what about pov_listening, pov_speech, solo_speech, solo_conversation (defined differently from monologue) or silent_listener? Of course since it's better to tag what's present, tagging the absent listener from a one-sided conversation wouldn't be helpful, so it'd have to reflect the one person who is talking and visible in the image.
That issue is what's giving me a lot of trouble with brainstorming tags for the second instance. Maybe the aforementioned suggestions could function for both instances - after all, the idea of someone in the image talking is the same for both. The key difference is the listening audience.
The bulk update request #1108 (forum #127514) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.