I think >:) should only be used with a closed-mouth smile (separate from >:d), kind of like how ;) and ;d are used currently. In that case, the implication shouldn't be in place.
Updated by Shinjidude
Posted under General
I think >:) should only be used with a closed-mouth smile (separate from >:d), kind of like how ;) and ;d are used currently. In that case, the implication shouldn't be in place.
Updated by Shinjidude
Sounds good...
Full support.
Removed it
I've modified the wiki and did some careful tag cleanup of >:) >:D so that only results with both expressions are present in the tag. Some of the flashes I have not checked because I can't or don't want to bother (I confirmed both expressions in post #216771, post #511526, and post #1023902, but not the others).
Speaking of which, similar to this maybe we could change these aliases to implications and adopt the closed mouth definition:
:) -> smile
:( -> frown
The downside is that it will be way too time consuming to completely populate, but at the time being it's particularly hard to isolate regular closed-mouth smiles due to all the implications leading to smile.
Keep in mind we also have light_smile for a subtle closed-mouth smile, and it doesn't implicate to smile proper. We could debate if we want to keep things that way, but that's the pattern I've been using.