Just double check to make sure there are no characters talking in the comic before tagging it silent_comic. As there are posts like post #594496 where there is talking in a normally silent series.
I guess one thing that needs to be considered, do we still call it a silent comic so long as the characters don't talk or would having any kind of written text not sfx disqualify it? I'd personally go with so long as it's not the characters talking.
just some examples to think over: post #412685 TV talking, silent characters. post #669209 text with inner thoughts, but no speech.
what about comics where only a sound, a sign or any other non-talking text was translated? is someone also gonna go tag those? I'll start on my favorites, but I can't do everything
Roarchu said: what about comics where only a sound, a sign or any other non-talking text was translated? is someone also gonna go tag those? I'll start on my favorites, but I can't do everything
Well IMO it should only be applied to actual comics as opposed to single images.
Also what about sounds like a vocal growl. That is at time translated and is a sound but is not speech. Same thing for ZZZZ... Was kinda waffling on those.
Pyrolight said: Well IMO it should only be applied to actual comics as opposed to single images.
I'm still seeing "silent comic" (and even "comic") being applied to non-comic images like the ones in pool #3922 and pool #3923. I think this is wrong, but since it's so widespread, I thought I'd bring it up here.
For sets of images like that, I prefer to consider that each image is a single frame of the comic. It may seem a stretch, but I would consider images like that a form of comic and thus valid to place under the silent_comic tag. It isn't uncommon for such image sets to have speech.
Certainly these images are able to stand alone, but given the fact that they're part of a set and their full understanding belongs as part of that set, they're by far closer to a comic than they are a stand alone "art" image.
NWF_Renim said: For sets of images like that, I prefer to consider that each image is a single frame of the comic. It may seem a stretch, but I would consider images like that a form of comic and thus valid to place under the silent_comic tag. It isn't uncommon for such image sets to have speech.
Certainly these images are able to stand alone, but given the fact that they're part of a set and their full understanding belongs as part of that set, they're by far closer to a comic than they are a stand alone "art" image.
So far the leaning in forum #64835 is to fully separate image set and comic from one another as far as the rules go, apply the silent_comic tag to images sets would confuse the issue.
Then I'd say they're wrong in this case. These images are being taken out of context, they originally came together in a manner that would make them a comic. The artist released them together, and they're tied together in their original state in a manner that would make them a comic. The only difference between these and other comics is that the artist did not physically attach each frame together and instead had pixiv tie them together for them.
edit: It's a big mistake trying to completely separate what you define as a "image_set" from "comics." There are plenty of things that can be labelled an image set, and many of them will not tell a story. It'd make much more sense to use both tag concepts together labeling "image sets" that tell a story as a "comic" as well. If someone doesn't want a "image set" tainting their comics tag, they then can simply perform a comic -image_set search. This also gives the freedom for people to also find image sets that tell a story by performing image_set comic search without having to dig through other types of image sets. These concepts aren't black and white, they're shades of gray.
If you don't mind put the above thoughts in forum #64835 as well. We are trying to hammer out they overall approval process for comics and what applies and what doesn't.
