Implicating reaction_image -> reaction.

Reason: Can't have a reaction image without a reaction.

123easy said:
Implicating reaction_image -> reaction.

Reason: Can't have a reaction image without a reaction.

reaction image generally is for images to provoke a reaction, while reaction by itse;f is an extremely vague term. Don't implicate, and additionally, alias reaction to invalid_tag.

reaction is not at all vague, nor should it be invalidated. it's for use when shock or fear doesn't apply- ambiguously-emotional but still obvious reactions. It's also usable as a more generic tag for reaction images when it's part of another image, rather than the only reason for the image, such as in a comic page or multipart drawing.

Lyokira said:
reaction image generally is for images to provoke a reaction, while reaction by itself is an extremely vague term. Don't implicate, and additionally, alias reaction to invalid_tag.

I thought "reaction_image" was for images of a character having a pretty strong reaction to something. Like, making an O.O face, or something. post #112594, for example.

I vote leave it alone, since it's not really about the reaction as much as the reaction coupled perhaps with a caption, for use in things like forums and comments. But I'm not gonna freak if it's implied.

reaction_image is where the reaction is the main focus of the image; It's the meme of the shock-face, or wtf?! face, primarily. however, you can get these sort of faces in images (the V mask troll-face is a good example) where it is NOT the -main- focus of the image, and thus, is simply labelled reaction.