Topic: Tag Implication: talking_to_viewer -> dialogue

Implicating talking_to_viewer → dialogue
Link to implication

Reason:

Approved.

Are you sure about this? Just because a character is talking to the viewer doesn't mean they're actually having a conversation. What if the viewer is a rock on the ground?

Delian said:
Are you sure about this? Just because a character is talking to the viewer doesn't mean they're actually having a conversation. What if the viewer is a rock on the ground?

Wow You Bumped This Thread Just To Make A bad argument seriously dude?

Ok, how about this.

The word "dialogue" means "a conversation between two or more characters".

Does talking_to_viewer imply a conversation?
No. It can be a monologue and only the depicted character is talking.

Does talking_to_viewer imply there are two characters?
No. It can simply be the character talking to the camera.

What does talking_to_viewer imply?
Well, it implies text, and that's about it.

I guess the main problem here is the fact that the dialogue tag is used for.. "text which is being spoken aloud.". Which is wrong, since that's something entirely different from what the word dialogue means. I guess I'll make a new thread for it then!

memeboy said:
Wow You Bumped This Thread Just To Make A bad argument seriously dude?

Users are free to bump recent threads as long as it's on topic and not disruptive, particularly for tag/wiki issues.

Delian said:
Are you sure about this? Just because a character is talking to the viewer doesn't mean they're actually having a conversation. What if the viewer is a rock on the ground?

"Viewer" on this site refers to the you (the camera, if you prefer), and that's it. Which means the implication is valid based on how dialogue is currently used.

However, I think you've brought up some valid points here and I'd like to continue this discussion in forum #154961.