Aliasing blush_stickers → blush_sticker
Link to alias

Reason:

or vis versa!

Plural has 190 posts, and no wiki page.
Singular has 232 posts and a wiki page.

I think 'stickers' is more natural feeling, actually, over sticker. :)

...I've always just tagged those as rosy_cheeks.

Alias it the other way around, since blush_stickers already has an implication.

As for the usage? Looking at the first posts, I think it was originally made for these kind of blushes:

post #1419079 post #909409 post #1386391 post #977843 post #1002872

Would probably be best to limit it to those, the other types (such as post #1386331) fit better in rosy_cheeks.

Furrin_Gok said:
...I've always just tagged those as rosy_cheeks.

mmm, I didn't know about that tag.

That said... Blush_stickers are supposed to be a firm hard-ish-edged pink mark on the cheeks.

Rosy cheeks seems like a mix of blush_stickers and blush by posts...

I think I prefer blush_stickers because that's pretty obviously not just... a blush. rosy cheeks feels like it might just be someone's alternative blush' tag, y'know?

Hmmm...

edit: ffs, sleepy snowwolf posts late again.. and misses the obvious. Yay.

I keep getting cuaght by the assumption that "well, surely if one of them has a wikipage, the other doesn't already have implications right?"

bah.

SnowWolf said:
rosy cheeks feels like it might just be someone's alternative blush' tag

Exactly...it’s just an unnessecary tag that caught some steam. It’s just a synonym for “blush”, and if anything rosy_cheeks should be aliased to blush.

Blush stickers are just a hard-edged blush such that they look like a sticker. They don’t have to be hanging off a character’s face, or protruding into their hair. Here is a TV Tropes article on blush stickers which I think is about as high authority as we’re gunna find on this matter...look at the example image...that shit look like it’s hanging off her face? NO.

And it should be “stickers”...PLURAL. I have never seen a drawing where a character blushes out of one side of thier face...why is that even up for debate?

Dyrone said:
And it should be “stickers”...PLURAL. I have never seen a drawing where a character blushes out of one side of their face...why is that even up for debate?

Because in many--but not all-- cases we prefer the singular. (something that throws me off whenever I tag a one-eyed char or character with heterochromia. :))

as for blushing out of one side of the face.. well, if the character's pictured in profile and you could only SEE one blush sticker...

SnowWolf said:
Rosy cheeks seems like a mix of blush_stickers and blush by posts...

Not identical. Blush is for blushing, whereas rosy_cheeks seems to be intended for markings. Consider these, for example:

post #277691 post #958840 post #351514 post #998420

Although 'rosy cheeks' might not be the best name for it, since there are other colors. Emolga and Raichu have similar markings in yellow, etc.

Genjar said:
Not identical. Blush is for blushing, whereas rosy_cheeks seems to be intended for makeup and natural coloring. Consider these, for example:

post #277691 post #351514

Well, my point was that rosy_cheeks seems to be tagged for a number of different things, including blush stickers, and standard blush. not that it was identical to them. :) anyway, that's really beside the point.

How do you tell between make up and regular blushing?

These are all tagged rosy_cheeks:

Blush stickers: post #1441136 post #1429597 post #1437722
Regular Blush: post #1432593 post #1334676 post #1270353
Probably make up: post #1417777

Although 'rosy cheeks' might not be the best name for it, since there are other colors. Raichu has similar markings in yellow, etc.

Honestly, I consider pikachu/raichu/similar to be mistagged if tagged for any form of "blush". (unless, of course, they're blushing) Those are natural markings, y'know? It'd be like tagging a panda with black_eye, or what have you, haha.

I mean, we could have some sort of marking like cheek_circle_(marking) or something.

SnowWolf said:
How do you tell between make up and regular blushing?

Yeah, I already edited that. It's too hard to tell. Heck, the makeup is literally called 'blush', no point in trying to differentiate those.

Rosy_cheeks seems to be tagged mostly for the markings, not for actual blushing. Definitely needs to be sorted out, but I don't think we can alias it to blush.

I mean, we could have some sort of marking like cheek_circle_(marking) or something.

Something like that would work much better. Besides the Pokemon that I already listed, there's several other species that have those. Cockatiels, for instance.
post #548094 post #1144172

Common enough to be tagged.

Genjar said:
Yeah, I already edited that. It's too hard to tell. Heck, the makeup is literally called 'blush', no point in trying to differentiate those.

Haha, yeah, I actually first typed "how do you tell the difference between blush and blush?" whoops.

Rosy_cheeks seems to be tagged mostly for the markings, not for actual blushing. Definitely needs to be sorted out, but I don't think we can alias it to blush.

It isn't a big tag -- I'll clean it out sometime soon. Y'know, like the rest of my to do list. this weekend, probably.

Something like that would work much better. Besides the Pokemon that I already listed, there's several other species that have those. Cockatiels, for instance.
post #548094 post #1144172

Common enough to be tagged.

Dang, those are some nice pictures :)

so let's see...

looks like... *_markings is used for location and color, while *_(marking) is used to describe the marking. _Marking seems to be used erratically.

and this is, of course, setting aside things like stripes and spots ;P

Sooo.. it seems like _(marking) would be the 'correct' suffix. whew.

Cheek_circle_(marking)? Cheek_spot_(marking)? blush_(marking)?

SnowWolf said:
looks like... *_markings is used for location and color, while *_(marking) is used to describe the marking. _Marking seems to be used erratically.

*_marking seems to be mostly used for shapes, but those should probably be moved into the other two groups for consistency.

Anything in brackets tends to be a disambiguation.
*_(marking) consists mainly of things with other meanings: mask_(object) <> mask_(marking), mole_(animal) <> mole_(marking), socks_(clothing) <> socks_(marking), and so on.

Cheek_circle_(marking)? Cheek_spot_(marking)? blush_(marking)?

I was going to suggest cheek_patch_*, since that's what it's called on birds, but after a Google image search it doesn't seem like a good idea.

Genjar said:
*_marking seems to be mostly used for shapes, but those should probably be moved into the other two groups for consistency.

Anything in brackets tends to be a disambiguation.
*_(marking) consists mainly of things with other meanings: mask_(object) <> mask_(marking), mole_(animal) <> mole_(marking), socks_(clothing) <> socks_(marking), and so on.

It is pretty... annoyingly inconsistent. I'd love to see...

.... I was trying to find the tag_group page for markings and marking accessories but found myself on tag_group:colors instead.

blue_hair, blue_eyes I get. Blue_belly? sure. but specific tail colors? wing colors? Those are technically markings anyway and I have this feeling like I"m looking into the abyss again. (jesus. camo_pussy? It has 6 posts, all of fluttershy. You can't even SEE her pussy in one of them... come on. If you're gonna make a tag for your weird crotch-color fetish, at least populate it.)

.... r-right.. tag_group:markings.

I'd love to see some of these renamed to be a little more clear... maybe marking_on_ear rather than ear_markings.

I feel like there's some redundant-ness in all this--but I can't logic out where at the moment (minus some obvious ones like <3/heart, scar/scar_(marking) etc)

I dunno. I'm tired.

I guess there are some parts that confuse me. leg_markings is about half sock/glove markings and half 'other' markings.

socks_(marking) implies markings but not leg_markings... (which makes sense either way to me, but, inconsistent.)

Anyway: I'd be really happy to not have to type _(marking) every time--I have enough trouble with sock/socks/boot/boots (protip: only one of those is right) as it is.

I was going to suggest cheek_patch_*, since that's what it's called on birds, but after a Google image search it doesn't seem like a good idea.

hahah, nope. u. maybe just cheek_marking? like a blaze or a mask

{okay, last grumble: bay_(marking) is for a horse coloration.. the whoel full body coloration. that's not a marking. I think it SHOULD be tagged! but it's not a marking.... and palomino isn't a marking tag... it's a species.

oooh, that way lies horse-madness.)

would it be wise to try to create a tag for cheek markings and include pikachu? I mean that character/species/whatever is so goddamned popular you might as well just be making a second pikachu tag at that point. That would be like making a tag lightning-shaped_tail...it would end up being 99.5% pikachu.

Pikachu (and Raichu, along with other pikachu-like pokemon) doesn’t count in all this...he just can’t...otherwise he’ll completely dominate whatever tag is used to describe those cheek marks.

Anyways...in many cases it would be impossible to tell if a a blush sticker is meant to be catoon blush or a cartoon-blush-like marking, and ultimately I question if it matters.

Dyrone said:
would it be wise to try to create a tag for cheek markings and include pikachu? I mean that character/species/whatever is so goddamned popular you might as well just be making a second pikachu tag at that point. That would be like making a tag lightning-shaped_tail...it would end up being 99.5% pikachu.

Pikachu (and Raichu, along with other pikachu-like pokemon) doesn’t count in all this...he just can’t...otherwise he’ll completely dominate whatever tag is used to describe those cheek marks.

cheek_marking -pokemon --it's annoying but it's far from the only place that a character or franchise totally dominates search results.

I mean, the entire youkai tag is basically dominated by the yo-kai_watch, and inu yasha c_c

Creating exceptions like that just mean that people will tag it wrong.

Anyways...in many cases it would be impossible to tell if a a blush sticker is meant to be catoon blush or a cartoon-blush-like marking, and ultimately I question if it matters.

...What? I'm not sure what you mean.

ultimately, tag what you see-- it doesn't matter if it's a marking or blush--what matters is the general design of the marking.

Yeah, it's best to keep exceptions to minimum. Users will tag it anyway,
so there's no point in trying to exclude certain species.

Flaming_tail, for instance. Tagged 3000+ times, mostly for the Charmander evo-line, the rest consist mostly of hybrids and Red XIII. At least this cheek_markings (or whatever it should be called) covers a lot more than just Pokemon.

(Still thinking about the name. Looks like users have tried to tag these in the past as cheek_dots, cheek_spots, etc.)

Genjar said:
Yeah, it's best to keep exceptions to minimum. Users will tag it anyway,
so there's no point in trying to exclude certain species.

Flaming_tail, for instance. Tagged 3000+ times, mostly for the Charmander evo-line, the rest consist mostly of hybrids and Red XIII. At least this cheek_markings (or whatever it should be called) covers a lot more than just Pokemon.

my poor skull_mask. 441 posts and all but about 130 of them are cubones and marowaks

And I really should populate it's sequel, skull_head/skull_face, but that's going to be the rest of the cubones/marowaks. (well, at least the ones where it looks like a skull and not a white-faced slightly-knobby head.)

Worse are the tags where lots of franchises apply. like (as I hop briefly onto that horse again) werewolf. ... unfortunately, people will keep tagging docile anthro wolves for it no matter what.

....maybe I should hop on the bandwagon for a vicious_werewolf tag? :P anyway.

(Still thinking about the name. Looks like users have tried to tag these in the past as cheek_dots, cheek_spots, etc.)

well those failed because no one put 'marking' in the name. also they sound like they could be for "furred freckles" ... also to add to your list... or the blushing list: red_cheeks... cheek_marks etc, though that one was tagged--a whole 5 times for two whisker markings and 3 'non-round' cheek marks.

round_cheek_marking
colored_cheek_marking
cheek_spot_marking
cheek_patch_marking

eh, I dunno.

Genjar said:
Yeah, it's best to keep exceptions to minimum. Users will tag it anyway,
so there's no point in trying to exclude certain species.

Flaming_tail, for instance. Tagged 3000+ times, mostly for the Charmander evo-line, the rest consist mostly of hybrids and Red XIII. At least this cheek_markings (or whatever it should be called) covers a lot more than just Pokemon.

(Still thinking about the name. Looks like users have tried to tag these in the past as cheek_dots, cheek_spots, etc.)

yeah, but the problem here is that whatever you come up with will overlap severely with blush_stickers. What is a marking, and what is blush? There are very very few images like this one that have the fidelity to tell for certain. For instance Kirby always has what I would consider to be blush_stickers on his face:

post #679782

So...is that a marking or is he just constantly blushing? That's pretty much unknowable. With pikachu his cheek markings are such a deep red that it's pretty well understood that they have to be a marking, whereas with other characters it's unclear, and thus they shouldn't be tagged as a marking. That's why I'm saying the tag is going to be 99% pikachu...there's a lot less ambiguity with something like flaming_tail...I mean...you see a fire on a tail it can really only be one thing.

Dyrone said:
yeah, but the problem here is that whatever you come up with will overlap severely with blush_stickers. What is a marking, and what is blush? There are very very few images like this one that have the fidelity to tell for certain. For instance Kirby always has what I would consider to be blush_stickers on his face:

post #679782

So...is that a marking or is he just constantly blushing? That's pretty much unknowable. With pikachu his cheek markings are such a deep red that it's pretty well understood that they have to be a marking, whereas with other characters it's unclear, and thus they shouldn't be tagged as a marking. That's why I'm saying the tag is going to be 99% pikachu...there's a lot less ambiguity with something like flaming_tail...I mean...you see a fire on a tail it can really only be one thing.

As you say, there is some ambiguity in the matter. The best answer that I have is that there isn't a best answer.

There's clearly a want for a cheek-marking tag, though.

I'd probably take it via artistic clues myself-- pikachu's cheek spots typically have an outline, so, I'd assume that to be a marking where a blush typically wouldn't.

That said, I don't think anyone looking for a cheek marking, or a blush sticker would be angry to find that kirby, so I'd probably tag both. Or neither. *shrugs*

That said, I think we're all very open to alternate ideas that are better suited to the problem, if you have anything :)

Dyrone said:
yeah, but the problem here is that whatever you come up with will overlap severely with blush_stickers. What is a marking, and what is blush? There are very very few images like this one that have the fidelity to tell for certain. For instance Kirby always has what I would consider to be blush_stickers on his face:

post #679782

So...is that a marking or is he just constantly blushing? That's pretty much unknowable. With pikachu his cheek markings are such a deep red that it's pretty well understood that they have to be a marking, whereas with other characters it's unclear, and thus they shouldn't be tagged as a marking. That's why I'm saying the tag is going to be 99% pikachu...there's a lot less ambiguity with something like flaming_tail...I mean...you see a fire on a tail it can really only be one thing.

We don't do "You can't tell." If they're there, they're there. If they aren't, they aren't.

Furrin_Gok said:
We don't do "You can't tell." If they're there, they're there. If they aren't, they aren't.

Yeah, thanks for letting me know you either didn't read or didn't understand my post. That's pretty much my point...don't tag something as a specific thing (in this case a marking) if you're not sure, or in this case CAN'T be sure if it is one or not.

^

Need to define what a tag is and is not, especially when different tags are proposed for very similar features. Otherwise nothing changes and we end up with same mess. rosy_cheeks 2.0

Here, the solution can be as simple as saying that blush_stickers should be for oval markings with a hard outline or immediate color shift below the eyes whereas cheek_circles can be for similar circular markings between the eyes and lips. Or just be uncomfortably literal (wouldn't be the first time) and tag blush_stickers as blush_ovals instead.

Bumping; was going to suggest this alias myself. Both blush_sticker and blush_stickers have moderate usage, but they're both terms used for the same thing.

Been trying to catch this tag on many posts(especially recently thanks to isabelle_(animal_crossing)), but I tend to forget or rush when tagging about singular/plural tags. Whether or not anyone can see the difference between blush or blush_sticker/s (silly to see there was a deviation from the original topic), blush_sticker and blush_stickers ought to be one tag.

From what I've seen, plurals takes precedence over singulars(i.e. - finger, fingers), so I'm voicing my support to have blush_sticker to be aliased to blush_stickers.