(For some reason the site wouldn't let me submit this as a proper tag implication request because the antecedent is allegedly already taken. I'd assume it was because the implication already exists, but based on both the wiki pages and the fact that dialogue -text returns hundreds of pages of results, this doesn't appear to be the case. If I did something wrong, please let me know.)

The wiki page for dialogue identifies it as a kind of text, and excludes both voice_acted and pictographics as dialogue. Logically, therefore, anything with dialogue has text in it. So I submit dialogue should implicate text.

I think the logic against this is that it's not always text. Sometimes, characters are speaking in pictographics instead of text. The dialogue wiki even says:

Not to be confused with

• pictographics, where dialogue consists exclusively, or mostly, of pictures instead of words.

Which is rather confusing. The wiki probably needs some tweaking for clarity.

Also, it's late, and my attention tends to slip a gear at this hour, so if the above reasoning is wonky, no surprises there. :\

clawstripe said:
I think the logic against this is that it's not always text. Sometimes, characters are speaking in pictographics instead of text. The dialogue wiki even says:
Which is rather confusing. The wiki probably needs some tweaking for clarity.

I understood that to mean that pictographics are not dialogue. If that's not the case, then yes, the problem is with the wiki.

vulpes_artifex said:
(For some reason the site wouldn't let me submit this as a proper tag implication request because the antecedent is allegedly already taken. I'd assume it was because the implication already exists, but based on both the wiki pages and the fact that dialogue -text returns hundreds of pages of results, this doesn't appear to be the case. If I did something wrong, please let me know.)

Already exists, see topic #23451.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Already exists, see topic #23451.

Ah, so the system automatically refuses recently rejected proposals? In that case, maybe a more descriptive message would be in order. "Antecedent has already been taken" doesn't tell me that at all.

Oh, and the wiki article still hasn't be clarified since then.

The implication is pending. If it is pening, the request will be blocked.

dubsthefox said:
The implication is pending. If it is pening, the request will be blocked.

Yeah, that doesn't come through in the message at all. That's some PC LOAD LETTER level stuff.

vulpes_artifex said:
Ah, so the system automatically refuses recently rejected proposals? In that case, maybe a more descriptive message would be in order. "Antecedent has already been taken" doesn't tell me that at all.

Oh, and the wiki article still hasn't be clarified since then.

The error message could definitely be reworded in layman's terms, but to be fair it already is a "descriptive message" that tells you what the issue is. In grammar, an antecedent is a word or phrase that gives meaning to another (the proform). It just says that the tag (the antecedent) is already taken in an alias or implication which blocks the new one you're trying to do.

I don't know what the wiki page means, because from what I've seen, the dialogue tag does apply to spoken dialogue as well, so the text tag may not always be necessary

trevortheyeen said:
The error message could definitely be reworded in layman's terms, but to be fair it already is a "descriptive message" that tells you what the issue is. In grammar, an antecedent is a word or phrase that gives meaning to another (the proform). It just says that the tag (the antecedent) is already taken in an alias or implication which blocks the new one you're trying to do.

Even as it stands it doesn't really mean what it's supposed to mean.