Implicate ^_^ to closed_eyes

reason: It is within the definition of ^_^ that the eyes are closed and this is verified by the wiki.

While I get your point..."Closed eyes" is a state of the eyes. "^_^" is an expression.

^_^ is an expression that involves having the eyes closed.

What happens if that expression is an emoticon instead of the expression on the character? Things like post #597780 and post #539392. There are no real eyes being closed in those circumstances.

Would it be handled like other spoken_ instances? We could use spoken_emoticon to differentiate when it is being used in speech.

Well not necessarily all instances are spoken, the example I quickly found (post #597780) was spoken, but they aren't actually spoken in post #539392. Those were just the ones found under emoticon, but I doubt they're the only ones.

I kind of think that it would be better to tag it closed_eyes on a case to case bases, given that this tag is also a emoticon, it can't be ignored that there is likely a lot of emoticon usages of it in there. It could well be a depiction on a computer screen or something in the image, in which case I don't think closed_eyes would be valid in those cases.

As a precedent in this case, we do have an implication for :p → tongue, where an emoticon implies a component that would be present in an actual expression, but not the symbol itself.

I've only looked through the rating:s images so far (89%) of the images tagged ^_^ and only found the two already tagged emoticon, so it doesn't really seem the emoticon usage is really present amongst the images. I guess there really wouldn't be any issues then going with the implication.

There were also two images of pokemon, post #659966 (especially comparing it to post #792688) and post #670474 where it seems the eyes aren't actually closed to accomplished the ^_^ expression. Not that I'm using them for an argument, just thought it seemed a bit odd (only found those 2 images out of 89% of the current 1520 not deleted images).

There is another type of close eyes,>_< that said to be the eyes are really shut.

It is true that they're closed eyes, but I kind of question if they should be under the closed_eyes tag or not. While images of ^_^ share identical appearances as normally closed eyes in most cases, >_< images does not actually share a similarity in appearance and so I question if people searching for closed eyes would be really be wanting to find images of >_<.

Going with current tagging, over 35% of images tagged ^_^ are also already tagged closed_eyes. On the other hand only about 10% of images tagged >_< are also tagged closed_eyes. I kind of think that shows that fewer people think that >_< images should be found under the closed_eyes tag.

I still maintain that the emoticon expression tags should only be used for the emoticon itself in images, for this very reason.

Fencedude said: I still maintain that the emoticon expression tags should only be used for the emoticon itself in images, for this very reason.

Kind of agree, but it's a bit much to unwind at this point. I'd rather get the emoticon tag and any applicable word tags on there so we've got all bases covered.

To that end, did the implication asked for in the top post. NWF's ambiguous cases are noted, but as he notes we can probably live with that under closed_eyes.

Would having a "^_^_(emoticon)" tag help?