The bulk update request #2962 is pending approval.

mass update colored -> colored_version
create alias colourized (0) -> colored_version (0)
create alias coloured_version (0) -> colored_version (0)

Reason: The colored tag is very ambiguous to users who are not familiar with the wiki entry. The tag is meant for alternate version of images that have been colored in (by either the artist or someone else), not for any image that features color, as the tag would imply by its name.

To address this confusion, update the colored tag to colored_version and add colored, colourized, and coloured_version as extra aliases.

The bulk update request #2963 has been rejected.

create alias colored (80656) -> colored_version (0)

Reason: Alias could not be applied in the main BUR body.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2963 (forum #341167) has been rejected by @Songbird.
Had transitive relationships and couldn't be applied through a BUR, apparently.

The bulk update request #2963 (forum #341167) has been rejected by @Songbird.

We shouldn't be tagging "versions" of images. We don't tag "line_art_version", "sketch_version", "nude_version", "clothed_version", "sex_version", "solo_version", "cum_version", etc. We just tag what's in that particular image, irrespective of any alternate versions there may be.

watsit said:
We shouldn't be tagging "versions" of images. We don't tag "line_art_version", "sketch_version", "nude_version", "clothed_version", "sex_version", "solo_version", "cum_version", etc. We just tag what's in that particular image, irrespective of any alternate versions there may be.

That's more a critique with the existence of the colored tag in general, rather than this particular alias. The colored tag could be changed to the invalid category if that's something that most people agree with.

Edit: The latter part is also not fully true. We have metatags explicitly for versions, notably better_version_at_source, alternate_version_at_source, and the edit tag to cover versions of posts that have been edited. There is precedent to refer to versions of images via metatags, but it should definitely be limited in scope.

songbird said:
That's more a critique with the existence of the colored tag in general, rather than this particular alias. The colored tag could be changed to the invalid category if that's something that most people agree with.

I think a colored tag that indicates a colored image is fine. There's monochrome, greyscale, partially_colored, restricted_palette, etc, so having a tag to indicate the image is colored wouldn't be unnecessary. Changing the wiki to make the tag for any colored image (or fully colored images) would be my suggestion.

songbird said:
Edit: The latter part is also not fully true. We have metatags explicitly for versions, notably better_version_at_source, alternate_version_at_source, and the edit tag to cover versions of posts that have been edited. There is precedent to refer to versions of images via metatags, but it should definitely be limited in scope.

better_version_at_source and alternate_version_at_source are there to indicate there are better/other versions of images at the source that should be posted here. They can be seen somewhat as calls-to-action, asking people to go to the source and post the better/other versions here (with exceptions for there being so many alts that they can't all be posted here, since there's a limit of 5). They don't indicate the type of alt though, and the tags should be removed once the alts are posted here.

edit is to indicate a third-party edit, that there was stuff done to the image that the tagged artist wasn't responsible for, so that the viewer doesn't infer the original artist is responsible for the image or video (copyright misappropriation would be a problem otherwise).

watsit said:
We shouldn't be tagging "versions" of images. We don't tag "line_art_version", "sketch_version", "nude_version", "clothed_version", "sex_version", "solo_version", "cum_version", etc. We just tag what's in that particular image, irrespective of any alternate versions there may be.

I don’t see why we shouldn’t or couldn’t. Those would probably be useful.

scaliespe said:
I don’t see why we shouldn’t or couldn’t. Those would probably be useful.

I don't see how they'd be useful. If the image is line art, it's tagged line_art, if it has a nude character, it's tagged nude. That there's alternate sketch or clothed versions isn't really relevant to tagging as those alternates would be tagged sketch or clothed anyway. Similarly, a colored version would be tagged colored regardless.

watsit said:
I don't see how they'd be useful. If the image is line art, it's tagged line_art, if it has a nude character, it's tagged nude. That there's alternate sketch or clothed versions isn't really relevant to tagging as those alternates would be tagged sketch or clothed anyway.

Perhaps not so much for the specific versions, but a general alternate version tag or the like indicating that multiple versions of a post exist would be nice to have (searching for whether a post has a parent or child isn’t terribly useful as parents/children are often not alts).

As for colored, I think of it as similar to unfinished in the sense that I’d typically use them together when uploading both the line art and the finished version of an image. If we were to just use colored for any colored image, however, I’m afraid the post would likely be missing from a couple million posts, and tagging all of those seems more effort than it’s worth. Also, it’s basically equivalent to -monochrome, except that it returns far fewer results, so I don’t see how it would be useful at all. The current usage may not be all that useful either, but I could see at least some niche use for specifically finding posts where both the line art and colored version exist, in case you want both for some reason.

scaliespe said:
Perhaps not so much for the specific versions, but a general alternate version tag or the like indicating that multiple versions of a post exist would be nice to have (searching for whether a post has a parent or child isn’t terribly useful as parents/children are often not alts).

Parent/child links should be primarily for alts or two-page sequences. 3+ page sequences should be in a pool without parent-child links (and certainly not parent-child chains, where page 2 has page 1 as a parent, page 3 has page 2 as a parent, etc), and unrelated images shouldn't be connected with parent-child links. Do note that that alts don't have to be based on the same line art, or use the same background. Just some underlying relation, like different characters in the same scene, or different camera/viewer positions of the same scene.

scaliespe said:
As for colored, I think of it as similar to unfinished in the sense that I’d typically use them together when uploading both the line art and the finished version of an image.

unfinished can apply to a single image without a completed alt. WIP is aliased to it, so a completed version doesn't have to exist yet for it to apply.

scaliespe said:
If we were to just use colored for any colored image, however, I’m afraid the post would likely be missing from a couple million posts, and tagging all of those seems more effort than it’s worth. Also, it’s basically equivalent to -monochrome, except that it returns far fewer results, so I don’t see how it would be useful at all. The current usage may not be all that useful either, but I could see at least some niche use for specifically finding posts where both the line art and colored version exist, in case you want both for some reason.

Either way, I don't think colored should be aliased to colored_version, and we can't assume all current uses are for colored alts. If we're not going to have a tag to indicate the post is merely colored or fully colored, it would be ambiguous as the name doesn't suggest it's for the particular case of a non-colored version also existing, and something people regularly tag without knowing better. It would be better disambiguated and manually fixed in that case.

watsit said:
Parent/child links should be primarily for alts or two-page sequences. 3+ page sequences should be in a pool without parent-child links (and certainly not parent-child chains, where page 2 has page 1 as a parent, page 3 has page 2 as a parent, etc), and unrelated images shouldn't be connected with parent-child links. Do note that that alts don't have to be based on the same line art, or use the same background. Just some underlying relation, like different characters in the same scene, or different camera/viewer positions of the same scene.

That’s not what I mean by an alt. I am specifically referring to variants based on the same line art; essentially, anything that would count towards the five variant of the same base art rule.

unfinished can apply to a single image without a completed alt. WIP is aliased to it, so a completed version doesn't have to exist yet for it to apply.

No, but colored (under the current definition) does require an unfinished version somewhere to apply, hence why they would go together.

Either way, I don't think colored should be aliased to colored_version, and we can't assume all current uses are for colored alts. If we're not going to have a tag to indicate the post is merely colored or fully colored, it would be ambiguous as the name doesn't suggest it's for the particular case of a non-colored version also existing, and something people regularly tag without knowing better. It would be better disambiguated and manually fixed in that case.

Right, it should probably be just the mass update without the alias. I imagine colored is mistagged often enough with the current name.

scaliespe said:
That’s not what I mean by an alt.

But other people may, and that's part of the issue with tagging alts. What one person considers an alt, another may not. As it is, I've seen uploaders blow past the 5 alt limit not realizing the alt limit applied to what they were posting. Policing tags based on what counts as an alt would be its own endeavor.

scaliespe said:
essentially, anything that would count towards the five variant of the same base art rule.

Anything that counts toward the alt limit can be detected with parent-child links. Aside from two-page sequences (which is some instances, some people may consider alts), that's all that should have a parent or child post. We don't need to explicitly tag alts, let alone explicitly tag what is different about a particular alt. At best, rather than individual x_version tags, a post could have the normal x tag plus a has_alternates tag, but at that point, I don't see has_alternates being particularly useful, especially if e6's definition of an alt is different from what the user considers an alt.

I also can't imagine having an x_version tag for every x an artist can think to make an alt for. Even though we can already tag x, we'd need to continually keep on top of making new x_version tags as artists do something different for their alts. Alts where the only thing changed is a different character? Bulge size? Left leg placement? A background detail? It would also expand into non- territory, where a cum_version would necessitate a no_cum_version, penetration_version would need a no_penetration_version, corruption_version needing a non-corruption_version, bondage_version alongside non-bondage_version. So on top of breaking TWYS by depending on the contents of other images, we'd also be tagging what we don't see.

scaliespe said:
No, but colored (under the current definition) does require an unfinished version somewhere to apply, hence why they would go together.

But it can potentially be useful without requiring an uncolored version, and the definition can be changed to not require one. It'd be rather undertagged, sure, but so are sketch, line_art, partially_colored, etc. Should they be gotten rid of too?

scaliespe said:
Right, it should probably be just the mass update without the alias.

No, because that would carry the mistags, causing colored_version to be tagged on posts that don't have an uncolored version. Presuming such a tag is acceptable, they should be gone through and fixed manually (which is the point of _(disambiguation) tags, to say it's not clear what was meant and to check the post, rather than willingly mistagging a bunch of posts and then hoping those mistags get fixed).

if it's colored by the artist than it's just colored, if it's colored by a third party it'd be color_edit, the same applies similarly to other meta tags. why would we need to append _version to any of these tags? whenever there's multiple versions of a post we have parent/child post relationships.

watsit said:
But other people may, and that's part of the issue with tagging alts. What one person considers an alt, another may not. As it is, I've seen uploaders blow past the 5 alt limit not realizing the alt limit applied to what they were posting. Policing tags based on what counts as an alt would be its own endeavor.

I don’t find it very likely that this will actually be a genuine issue. I’ve also gone over the 5 alt limit simply because I didn’t know at the time that there existed such a limit. Figuring out what’s an alt and what’s not, with a bit of gray area as there are in most things, is fairly easy to figure out. Are the lines mostly the same, and the posts aren’t sequential? Then it’s probably an alt. I don’t think there’s much more to it than that.

Anything that counts toward the alt limit can be detected with parent-child links. Aside from two-page sequences (which is some instances, some people may consider alts), that's all that should have a parent or child post.

Not quite. Besides sequences, there are also redraws or recreations of older artwork that can be parented to the original (post #3365144), as well as art that’s based on other art in some way, like some of the children of post #204756 - some of those are not remotely alts, but they’re still based directly on the artwork such that the parent-child relationship seems appropriate. Furthermore, separate posts with the same character in the same scene but in different positions would not count as an alt (the lines being completely different, each being drawn from scratch - or in the case of 3D, the model being posed separately) but would also count for parent-child, such as post #3110870. Essentially, I think any relation tying multiple posts together in any way that doesn’t warrant or qualify for a pool can get the parent-child relationship, and very often those are not alts.

We don't need to explicitly tag alts, let alone explicitly tag what is different about a particular alt. At best, rather than individual x_version tags, a post could have the normal x tag plus a has_alternates tag, but at that point, I don't see has_alternates being particularly useful, especially if e6's definition of an alt is different from what the user considers an alt.

I also can't imagine having an x_version tag for every x an artist can think to make an alt for. Even though we can already tag x, we'd need to continually keep on top of making new x_version tags as artists do something different for their alts. Alts where the only thing changed is a different character? Bulge size? Left leg placement? A background detail? It would also expand into non- territory, where a cum_version would necessitate a no_cum_version, penetration_version would need a no_penetration_version, corruption_version needing a non-corruption_version, bondage_version alongside non-bondage_version. So on top of breaking TWYS by depending on the contents of other images, we'd also be tagging what we don't see.

I don’t disagree with this… but I did suggest earlier that we’d be better off with a single tag indicating alternate versions rather than getting into the weeds with different types of alts:

scaliespe said:
Perhaps not so much for the specific versions, but a general alternate version tag or the like indicating that multiple versions of a post exist would be nice to have (searching for whether a post has a parent or child isn’t terribly useful as parents/children are often not alts).

And besides, some other boorus have a basic alternate version tag for this purpose, and it seems to work just fine for them, from what I gather. That’s actually where I get this idea from. It shouldn’t be terribly complicated in practice. There’s some gray area for what’s an alt or not, sure, but that’s the case with almost all our tags. There’s always a gray area.

But it can potentially be useful without requiring an uncolored version, and the definition can be changed to not require one. It'd be rather undertagged, sure, but so are sketch, line_art, partially_colored, etc. Should they be gotten rid of too?

I wouldn’t be entirely opposed to the existence of a general “this post has color” tag if the E6 userbase in general wants such a thing, but I do find it impractical. It actually would apply to most posts on the site. Click on the posts page on any given day, and something like 98% of the results probably have color. Sketch, line_art and partially_colored, on the other hand, apply to a much smaller minority of posts; and even so, I’m not sure they’re missing all that often. They seem to be pretty well tagged.