imply expression_chart -> expressions

BUR #9131 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication expression_chart -> expressions

tautologic

The bulk update request #9131 (forum #206959) has been approved by @evazion.

Do things like post #3333847 and post #1700720 really want to have the expressions tag? It very much goes against the wiki for expressions, but it is definitely an expression chart. Let alone post #1874588, post #939587 or post #908562

This looks like one of those implications suggested and approved because it sounds like it should work, without actually going into whether it really does.

BUR #9169 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

remove implication expression_chart -> expressions

As above. This implication should never have happened. About 1 in 5 posts that had the expressions tag added by this implication don't want itand nor do a fair few of the images that already had the tag, either because the "expressions" are all the same, or because it is a depiction of something that doesn't actually have expressions, but using the expression chart format (usually for a joke).

skylightcrystal said:

Do things like post #3333847 and post #1700720 really want to have the expressions tag? It very much goes against the wiki for expressions, but it is definitely an expression chart. Let alone post #1874588, post #939587 or post #908562

This looks like one of those implications suggested and approved because it sounds like it should work, without actually going into whether it really does.

Yes, those are still expressions, are they not?

Personally, I feel it's okay for wikis to change over time. Whether others agree or not varies, but I feel this is a case in which it can. Even if it's just a single expression for some memes, it's still... an expression. Dunno, that's just my opinion on the matter.

Yeah post #1874588 or post #908562 are not expressions.

The bulk update request #9169 (forum #207146) has been approved by @nonamethanks.

What about pool #965, should it stay?

That should be turned into a tag.

This is exactly why I'm skeptical about BUR #9153. Just because two tags share a word or mean something similar does not mean there aren't weird exceptions, or that we're actually using them in a way that supports an implication or alias (BUR #8706)