Should :c -> frown?

Since :( -> frown, then should :c -> frown? Since :c is just a variation of :(.

BUR #6322 has been rejected.

create alias :c -> frown

:c is just another variarion of :(.

post #4475712 or post #3742719 is not a frown.

skimming through the existing :c posts, it looks like all of them should either fall into :<, :( or are actually :o with the lower line not drawn clearly,

having this current level of granularity on tagging the frown curvature ( :<, :c, :( ) is ridiculous, so i suggest either this alias, or just re-tagging the posts and leaving :c at count=0, since it's a bit ambiguous itself.

regardless i think there's quite a few mis-tags that need to be checked, before applying the BUR (if we go with that option).

nonamethanks said:

post #4475712 or post #3742719 is not a frown.

Tbh. that's more a :<, the latter is more an :o.

:c is kinda a useless tag as there are many different shapes lumped into it, pretty much what bipface said. And the two example posts already show that impressively well.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #6322 (forum #191752) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

bipface said:

skimming through the existing :c posts, it looks like all of them should either fall into :<, :( or are actually :o with the lower line not drawn clearly,

It would be better to manually garden this tag then.