Implicating \o/ -> spread_arms.
Reason: \o/ is a specific way of spreading your arms.
Updated by jxh2154
Posted under General
I vote against this implication. Looking through the images they're different enough. Nearly all spread_arms images depict a horizontal spread of the arms (a T shape). While I could see why you'd say that \o/ looks similar, especially when the arms are spread around a 45 degrees (a Y shape). The majority of \o/ images are not what I'd call spreading the arms as they're actually more liking reaching to the sky. If I were to better describe \o/ it'd be naming it raised_arms.
Seems like an implication to arms_above would be better. Thoughts?
jxh2154 said:
Seems like an implication to arms_above would be better. Thoughts?
You mean arms_up.
NWF_Renim said:
...
The T-shape might be what a lot of images actually tagged with spread arms end up being, but there's nothing in the phrase "spread arms" that ties it to that particular pose. You have to spread your arms in order to make the \o/ pose, hence my implication. If you want only a T-shape, then you're using the wrong term--"spread arms" is too general. And many of the spread arms pictures look like \o/ anyway.
In fact, throw in the implication arms_up -> spread_arms while you're at it.
I think the spread_arms tag should be defined as having the arms stretched out and forming nothing smaller than a obtuse angle between the arms (honestly I'd go with nothing smaller than a 120 degree angle).
I don't quite understand how you're defining what is spread and what isn't. Most of the images tagged arms_up are hardly what I think people would use the word spread for.
Updated