The tag implication #52954 magenta_panties -> magenta_bottomwear has been rejected.

Reason: Matches with other cases of color_panties implying color_bottomwear

EDIT: The tag implication magenta_panties -> magenta_bottomwear (forum #382529) has been rejected by @slyroon.

magenta is not an official color, this should be aliased to pink_panties or purple_panties

magenta isn't one of the e621 colors:

tag_group:colors says:
The colors used for tagging on e621 are: black, blue, brown, green, grey (also silver available for skin), orange, pink, purple, red, tan, teal, white, yellow (also gold available for skin, also blonde available for hair and eyebrows).

The only magenta tag to currently be aliased away, however, is magenta_eyes -> purple_eyes. Other tags like magenta_fur, magenta_scales and magenta_hair have reached hundreds of posts without being aliased.

Teal was recently made a valid color, so maybe magenta could be too, i personally can't tell the difference between magenta and pink but that should be handled in a BUR creating all the necessary implication chains rather than just this one suggestion.

faucet said:
magenta isn't one of the e621 colors:

The only magenta tag to currently be aliased away, however, is magenta_eyes -> purple_eyes. Other tags like magenta_fur, magenta_scales and magenta_hair have reached hundreds of posts without being aliased.

Teal was recently made a valid color, so maybe magenta could be too, i personally can't tell the difference between magenta and pink but that should be handled in a BUR creating all the necessary implication chains rather than just this one suggestion.

Yes, this. Aliasing magenta to purple or pink is needless ambiguity imo. But then again I'm the kind of guy who finds "teal" too ambiguous since it's often used for what I'd call azure or cyan. Still, even if you categorize magenta as a flavour of pink or purple, tan is a valid colour even though tan is just a shade of brown. The entire reason to want a magenta tag in my opinion is because it's neither pink or purple and people can validly argue that it could be aliased to either. There's cases where a shade of magenta would be tagged as pink by the majority of users but magenta eyes gets aliased to purple eyes with only a subtle shift in hue between the two. By establishing magenta as an option you push pink and purple back into things that are much more unambiguously pink and purple.

kiwimelons said:
Yes, this. Aliasing magenta to purple or pink is needless ambiguity imo. But then again I'm the kind of guy who finds "teal" too ambiguous since it's often used for what I'd call azure or cyan. Still, even if you categorize magenta as a flavour of pink or purple, tan is a valid colour even though tan is just a shade of brown. The entire reason to want a magenta tag in my opinion is because it's neither pink or purple and people can validly argue that it could be aliased to either. There's cases where a shade of magenta would be tagged as pink by the majority of users but magenta eyes gets aliased to purple eyes with only a subtle shift in hue between the two. By establishing magenta as an option you push pink and purple back into things that are much more unambiguously pink and purple.

well, there's always going to be potential cases where colors are on the edge of two definitions, no matter how granular you make your options.

while our current definition of pink is a bit large and the space it covers is a bit irregular (with _{most of} our current canon colors tags being defined something like this ), I'm not sure if canonizing magenta is as necessary as teal was, since, prior to that green described nearly a quarter of all colors.

Also just noticed the bit where you said you can't tell the difference.

Pink: A desaturated shade of red, sometimes with slight blue tinting. ( Think: Start with red and add white or grey )
Magenta: A colour that's generally equal parts red and blue and when not in balance, usually a slightly greater part red. ( Think: Start with white and remove green and sometimes a blue a little. )
Purple: A shade adjacent to blue, sometimes with a slight red tinting. ( Think start with white and remove green and red, but remove more green than red. )

If you're colourblind, then I'm sorry if this just wastes your time, but there's a difference between these three even if there's a fuzzy boundary.

Here's colorhexa's default definitions of the three colours:
Pink: https://www.colorhexa.com/ffc0cb
Magenta: https://www.colorhexa.com/ff00ff
Purple: https://www.colorhexa.com/800080 ( Although I'd argue https://www.colorhexa.com/6b0080 and https://www.colorhexa.com/9600b3 are more representative of purple. )

And here's some posts that I think well demonstrate them:
Pink: Pretty much anything with mew_(pokemon)
Magenta: post #3835925 ( the panties ), post #4441222 ( the pants of the one on the left ), post #4275085
Purple: post #4474482, pretty much anything with twilight_sparkle_(mlp)

And this post ( post #4473546 ) is a good example of why I think magenta should be a legal colour term. This is tagged as purple_body, purple_eyes, but the eye colour is very different than the body colour.

I understand colour sorting is always going to be a little bit subjective as where you draw the boundary lines between one colour group and the next is partly subjective. But if nothing else, I think the fact that magenta is used as a colour space definition point ( CMYK colour space for printing ) should get it tags unto itself.

sipothac said:
well, there's always going to be potential cases where colors are on the edge of two definitions, no matter how granular you make your options.

while our current definition of pink is a bit large and the space it covers is a bit irregular (with _{most of} our current canon colors tags being defined something like this ), I'm not sure if canonizing magenta is as necessary as teal was, since, prior to that green described nearly a quarter of all colors.

That's true, but I think that's still not enough definition in the space between blue and green tbh and red is broken down even more than that because brown and tan are separate.

Here's how I'm looking at it, right?

https://i.ibb.co/CBd5bc7/colors2.png

The point of ambiguity would be near the edge of the circle. I also tried to put where I roughly estimate "brown" to be, but without context it's hard to tell. I also drew new lines where I think a new colour definition between blue and teal should be. I labeled it C for "Cyan", but I probably would also alias "azure" to this range since that's what I think of most of that colour range as. Cyan is just a more recognizable and well defined colour in English and would give us a full CMYK colour point definition. With how many divisions we already have, I don't see a compelling reason why not to do it this way.

The tag implication magenta_panties -> magenta_bottomwear (forum #382529) has been rejected by @slyroon.