Implicating dialog → text
Link to implication

Reason:

Dialog is written in text.

I'd agree, but I'll go for -1.
I've seen multiple images where characters talk to each other by symbols, not actual text.
Pictographs, is that the word for it?

Peekaboo said:
I'd agree, but I'll go for -1.
I've seen multiple images where characters talk to each other by symbols, not actual text.
Pictographs, is that the word for it?

Ahh, you mean pics like this? post #34899
Yeah, really can't call this text but it's definitely dialog.

Not always. Dialog was recently UN-implicated from text because it was causing problems. Dialog isn't always using text. Sometimes dialog is using pictographics. There's at least one entire comic that only uses pictographics (and a few scattered sound effects, but that's only on some of the pages and not others). But the characters have entire conversations without using any text.
post #510602 post #511840 are examples of textless dialog in that comic.

There's also other places where entirely textless dialog happens:
post #487346 post #1444 post #373196 post #106381 post #52965 post #13361 post #171470

It's actually pretty impressive, but examples like that break the ability to implicate these two tags. If they were implicated, then pictures these would get the text tag even though many of them have no visible text within them. It just doesn't make a good implication. So I would say no to this implication.

ETA: Oops, I can see the point's already been raised. I guess it just gives more examples then. =)