Aliasing cyan_eyes → blue_eyes
Link to alias

Reason:

Since cyan_fur was aliased to blue_fur on forum #176545
Add aliases to these too:

• cyan_hair -> blue_hair
• cyan_tail -> blue_tail
• cyan_body -> blue_body
• cyan_penis -> blue_penis
• cyan_markings -> blue_markings
• cyan_skin -> blue_skin
• cyan_tongue -> blue_tongue
• cyan_pussy -> blue_pussy
• cyan_nose -> blue_nose
• cyan_pawpads -> blue_pawpads
• cyan_highlights -> blue_highlights
• cyan_sclera -> blue_sclera
• cyan_scales -> blue_scales
• cyan_claws -> blue_claws
• cyan_feathers -> blue_feathers
• cyan_lips -> blue_lips
• cyan_nails -> blue_nails
• cyan_countershading -> blue_countershading
• cyan_mane -> blue_mane
• cyan_horns -> blue_horns
• cyan_topwear -> blue_topwear
• cyan_shirt -> blue_shirt
• cyan_theme -> blue_theme

-1. cyan is very different from blue and i think that its useful as separate tag.

I was afraid this might happen.

To be honest, the main reason I disassembled the fur tag is it happened to be mistagged for mostly blue characters. Even then I was still on the fence about it (and still am).

I just don't think having a witch hunt to deprecate the cyan tags is really a productive use of our time.

parasprite said:
I was afraid this might happen.

To be honest, the main reason I disassembled the fur tag is it happened to be mistagged for mostly blue characters. Even then I was still on the fence about it (and still am).

I just don't think having a witch hunt to deprecate the cyan tags is really a productive use of our time.

Okay, thanks for the explanation.

What about the quite similar color "teal"?

HotUnderTheCollar said:
What about the quite similar color "teal"?

Meh, same thing. As long as we aren't using super obscure color names (or vague ones like "light_blue_hair") it's fine to stay.

Cyan is somewhat easy to tag (especially if you think of it as 'neon blue'), but teal seems harder. For instance, look at the recent posts tagged as teal_hair: most of those should be under cyan. ^{_{...at the moment, anyway. Dunno how it'll look by the time you read this.}}

Teal is a shade of green, but it gets tagged for blue.

If we're going to alias some of those away someday, I vote for teal instead of cyan.

Genjar said:
Cyan is somewhat easy to tag (especially if you think of it as 'neon blue'), but teal seems harder. For instance, look at the recent posts tagged as teal_hair: most of those should be under cyan. ^{_{...at the moment, anyway. Dunno how it'll look by the time you read this.}}

Teal is a shade of green, but it gets tagged for blue.

If we're going to alias some of those away someday, I vote for teal instead of cyan.

Turquoise is the hard one, as it seems identical to the way cyan is getting tagged. (Cyan is actually supposed to be a slightly darker shade than what's being tagged)

Furrin_Gok said:
Turquoise is the hard one, as it seems identical to the way cyan is getting tagged. (Cyan is actually supposed to be a slightly darker shade than what's being tagged)

We probably shouldn't be tagging turquoise as cyan. It's close enough to green to tag as green.

Edit: ...wait, no, no it isn't. Out of the colors what are used on e621, turquoise is closer to cyan than green. Hm.

Cyan ranges from #008B8B to #00FFFF, equal mix of green and blue. (Dark cyan and teal are nearly indistinguishable, which is why it's problematic to have tags for both cyan and teal.)

I've been thinking about colors a bit and am quite eager to deny the lot of cyan -> blue aliases.

I would also want to see if we can sort out:

• teal (alias to blue or cyan?)
• tan (similar to cream)

-1 just for the fact that cyan is a well established industry standard color separate from blue and a primary in CMYK color systems(1 of 2 systems primarly used for digital paintings/drawings)

cream is basicly white - alias
teal is too similar to some cyan shades as genjar pointed - alias
not sure about tan as that generaly is the common skin tone of caucasian and hispanic humans/humanoids...

R'D said:
-1 just for the fact that cyan is a well established industry standard color separate from blue and a primary in CMYK color systems(1 of 2 systems primarly used for digital paintings/drawings)

cream is basicly white - alias
teal is too similar to some cyan shades as genjar pointed - alias
not sure about tan as that generaly is the common skin tone of caucasian and hispanic humans/humanoids...

-1 to cream to white alias. Cream is an off-white color, and there is a noticable difference. It's a shade of yellow/brown (either or both), that is mixed with white, and the shade depends on how much brown/yellow to white you used. Here is an example; cream fur, white sheets.

What might be smart is we gather up all the colors currently used on site, be it eyes, fur, scales, or backgrounds, and make a list. Then, we just pick out each color and see if there are enough of a difference to the white/black and it's base color, to warrant the name. For instance, dark grey and grey may be necessary, but really dark grey to dark grey isn't. Then, it's just a process of going down that list.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
-1 to cream to white alias. Cream is an off-white color, and there is a noticable difference. Here is an example; cream fur, white sheets.

fur is actualy tan very similar to common caucasian human skin, i do degress thou that cream is a light yellow not white after double checking

edit/*just adding that all "(color)_*" wikis here on e621 should probaly have their corisponding color description page on wikipedia linked to minimize ambiguity

R'D said:
fur is actualy tan very similar to common caucasian human skin, i do degress thou that cream is a light yellow not white after double checking

Well, I'm then willing to say tan, and all shades therein, is still distinguishable from white, and should not be aliased.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
What might be smart is we gather up all the colors currently used on site, be it eyes, fur, scales, or backgrounds, and make a list. Then, we just pick out each color and see if there are enough of a difference to the white/black and it's base color, to warrant the name. For instance, dark grey and grey may be necessary, but really dark grey to dark grey isn't. Then, it's just a process of going down that list.

https://e621.net/wiki/show/tag_group:colors

what lightxcolor or darkxcolor is and is not is not nessarly objective, is why most tints(light...) and shades(dark...) are invalid

thru as suggested above having color wikis here linked to the corisponding articules on wikipedia would proubly help a bit clearing things up.

R'D said:
https://e621.net/wiki/show/tag_group:colors

what lightxcolor or darkxcolor is and is not is not nessarly objective, is why most tints(light...) and shades(dark...) are invalid

thru as suggested above having color wikis here linked to the corisponding articules on wikipedia would proubly help a bit clearing things up.

Can you rephrase what you said, or spell it out? I don't understand what you mean.

Hudson said:

• teal (alias to blue or cyan?)

It's problematic either way. Teal gets tagged for a random mix of green, cyan, actual teal, and occasional blue. So wherever it is aliased, there'll be mistags.

I wonder if teal_<anything> should be aliased to invalid_color_(teal). Just like we did with tan. That'd be a pain to clean up, though. Maybe it'd be best to just lump it into cyan and not worry about the mistags.

And I wonder if we should add something like this in the wiki for cyan_*:
█████ - green
█████ - cyan
█████ - blue

Maybe that'd cut down the amount of mistags.

Genjar said:
It's problematic either way. Teal gets tagged for a random mix of green, cyan, actual teal, and occasional blue. So wherever it is aliased, there'll be mistags.

I wonder if teal_<anything> should be aliased to invalid_color_(teal). Just like we did with tan. That'd be a pain to clean up, though. Maybe it'd be best to just lump it into cyan and not worry about the mistags.

And I wonder if we should add something like this in the wiki for cyan_*:
█████ - green
█████ - cyan
█████ - blue

Maybe that'd cut down the amount of mistags.

I think that would be a great idea. I know I definitely have some mistags on my posts

Genjar said:
...

And I wonder if we should add something like this in the wiki for cyan_*:
█████ - green
█████ - cyan
█████ - blue

Maybe that'd cut down the amount of mistags.

thatd work, better then my idea of linking to color articles from wikipedia^^;

Genjar said:
It's problematic either way. Teal gets tagged for a random mix of green, cyan, actual teal, and occasional blue. So wherever it is aliased, there'll be mistags.

I wonder if teal_<anything> should be aliased to invalid_color_(teal). Just like we did with tan. That'd be a pain to clean up, though. Maybe it'd be best to just lump it into cyan and not worry about the mistags.

And I wonder if we should add something like this in the wiki for cyan_*:
█████ - lime
█████ - green
█████ - teal
█████ - cyan
█████ - blue

Maybe that'd cut down the amount of mistags.

Personally I don't find that teal fits very well with cyan, however the same thing can be said about green and lime (see edited quote above). However I understand the issues and if it comes down to a combo tag I believe it could be better to alias both cyan and teal to "green_blue_*" (or similar) to make a statement about that we don't try to distinctly tag these colors (cyan (color and color range) is often treated as equivalent to aqua (color)).

There are similar problems with other colors as well, e.g. amber, brown, orange (and yellow) for eye color.

Undo this. Cyan is a very clearly visible different color to pure blue, and as such it should have independent tags.

Also, Look at how many -1s are in this thread. It is quite clear that the decision to do this goes against what the community thinks should be a thing.

Azula_Arktandr said:
Undo this. Cyan is a very clearly visible different color to pure blue, and as such it should have independent tags.

Also, Look at how many -1s are in this thread. It is quite clear that the decision to do this goes against what the community thinks should be a thing.

Wait, when did this get approved? Who approved it? Parasprite herself seemed to be against the alias.

Furrin_Gok said:
Wait, when did this get approved?

Months ago.
I'd guess that it got aliased because of how underused cyan eyes was compared to blue eye: couple hundred posts for cyan_eyes, 120000 for blue_eyes.

In retrospect, I think it made sense to alias it. No point in keeping them separate if almost all cyan eyes got tagged as blue anyway.

Genjar said:
Months ago.
I'd guess that it got aliased because of how underused cyan eyes was compared to blue eye: couple hundred posts for cyan_eyes, 120000 for blue_eyes.

In retroscpect, I think it made sense to alias it. No point in keeping them separate if almost all cyan eyes got tagged as blue anyway.

It's the principle of the matter. For one, some people actually do have a kink around certain colors, with particular shades and hues inciting arousal more than others.

And for two, it's inconsistent that the only cyan tags to get changed are the ones for fur and eyes; when there are a myriad of other cyan_* tags

I think it might have been a bit hasty approving this. Besides the whole RGB vs MYCK deal with colors, people might specifically be looking for cyan, and not just blue. I can accept some more obscure colors aren't going to get their own tags, like celadon, but cyan isn't an obscure color. It's one of the secondary colors on the color wheel, the other two being magenta and yellow.

There's also some fandoms that make specific reference to cyan for one thing and blue as another. For instance, Cyan and Blue are different traits in Undertale.