>_< + :o = >o<
It already implicates >_<.
EDIT: This tag implication has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.
EDIT: The tag implication >o< -> :o (forum #143307) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
Updated by DanbooruBot
Posted under Tags
>_< + :o = >o<
It already implicates >_<.
EDIT: This tag implication has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.
EDIT: The tag implication >o< -> :o (forum #143307) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
Updated by DanbooruBot
Or the other way around. It's the same expression: >_< eyes and an open, approximately round mouth
EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.
EDIT: The bulk update request #1485 (forum #143313) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
Updated by DanbooruBot
fossilnix said:
Or the other way around. It's the same expression: >_< eyes and an open, approximately round mouth
I'd prefer the other way around, myself (which would mean the thread's initial implication would need changing as well). It's consistent with xd and x3 (and a couple of other rarer ones), whereas the only other one between the >< signs is >3< which doesn't work with an x* tag.
Provence said:
Why is the wiki wrong?
If it's a :d face then xd is to be used. It's wrong usage then.
I'm just stating a fact. The wiki was created less than a day ago, but the tag has been used for :d faces for over two years. How can it be "wrong usage" when the tag is undefined?
iridescent_slime said:
I'm just stating a fact. The wiki was created less than a day ago, but the tag has been used for :d faces for over two years. How can it be "wrong usage" when the tag is undefined?
Simply: It isn't really intuitive if we already have another tag for the smiling faces: xd.
And that tag's wiki was created 8 years ago. Even if one tag has no clear definition before, this tag had one and should make clear how to use these two tags...Meaning we have to do re-tagging.
The tag implication >o< -> :o (forum #143307) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
The bulk update request #1485 (forum #143313) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.