The bulk update request #3485 is pending approval.

create alias surprised_look (640) -> surprised_expression (15654)
create alias surprised_face (1123) -> surprised_expression (15654)
create implication surprised_expression (15654) -> surprise (41253)

Reason: We don't need three tags for the same expression. Out of all three tags for the facial expression, surprised_expression is by far the most used, so suggesting aliasing the others to that.

Judging by the way it is being used + the fact that a character/situation/etc can have 'surprise' as a concept without a character making a surprised face (or even with a deliberately contrasting expression)... Keeping both surprise and also surprised_expression seems valid enough. It does seem like it should be implicated though.

Might aswell, can we add shocked/shocked expression and it's derivatives too? Hell, all expressions/emotions to this list?

I agree about keeping both surprise and surprised_expression as separate tags, because it's possible to convey the emotion without necessarily showing the facial expression.

Similarly, for example:

• A robotic character with a fixed face could be clearly angry without having an angry_expression.
• A speech balloon with a character announcing "This is so boring!" but looking angry while they say it might have the bored tag, but not bored_expression.
• An offscreen character says "Stop pestering me!", in which case the annoyed tag would be relevant, but annoyed_expression would not.

benjiboyo said:
Might aswell, can we add shocked/shocked expression and it's derivatives too? Hell, all expressions/emotions to this list?

Last year I started a topic about these expression tags: topic #30745. These are the ones that I think should still be changed:

• angry_look, angry_face, angry_eyes, angry_eyebrows -> angry_expression
• bored_look -> bored_expression
• worried_look, worried_face -> worried_expression.

However, I notice that at some point, worried_expression was aliased to worried (see topic #28944). For consistency, should that change be reversed, so we can make it an implication instead of an alias?