The bulk update request #7606 is pending approval.

Reason: Inspired by discussion in topic #26928

I agree these tags are useless tag bloat and too vague and subjective since they depend on their surroundings and the lighting. Pretty sure these are mostly leftover from I'llKogYourMaw anyway.

I chose countershading as a target for light_belly instead of belly because I believe it's more accurate to how people are tagging light_belly.

After:

alias light_gloves -> gloves
alias light_boxing_gloves -> boxing_gloves
alias light_mittens -> mittens
alias light_fingerless_gloves -> fingerless_gloves
alias light_elbow_gloves -> elbow_gloves
alias light_penis -> penis

The ones that get their own BURs

• Skin and body
• Other body textures, hair, eyes
• Clothing

cloudpie said:
Pretty sure these are mostly leftover from I'llKogYourMaw anyway.

The implication tree is done by the usual suspect, and some of the tags are too populous to have just been tagged by I'llKogYourMaw

What do you think of nuking the more populated tags which are getting aliased to an invalid tag? I don't think there's much enthusiasm for cleaning them up

The bulk update request #7607 is pending approval.

create alias light_nose (684) -> nose (0)
create alias light_balls (569) -> balls (1152168)
create alias light_legs (410) -> legs (0)
create alias light_fingers (415) -> fingers (560728)
create alias light_chest (378) -> chest_(disambiguation) (3)
create alias light_neck (347) -> neck (0)
remove alias light_ass (0) -> light_butt (354)
remove alias light_booty (0) -> light_butt (354)
remove implication light_butt (354) -> butt (1117358)
create alias light_claws (374) -> claws (586863)
create alias light_text (234) -> text (1307447)
create alias light_feet (322) -> feet (673973)
create alias light_nipples (441) -> nipples (1374447)
create alias light_pussy (315) -> pussy (962401)
remove implication light_horn (309) -> horn (719102)
create alias light_eyebrows (316) -> eyebrows (277550)
create alias light_tongue (354) -> tongue (921730)
remove alias light_areolae (0) -> light_areola (368)
remove alias light_areolas (0) -> light_areola (368)
remove implication light_areola (368) -> areola (461438)
remove implication light_t-shirt (8) -> light_shirt (156)
remove implication light_t-shirt (8) -> t-shirt (31835)

Reason: Continued

Arms is currently aliased to invalid_tag, but I believe it should be instead moved to the invalid category to match other body part tags like legs.
I can't think of a good alias target for light_head... should it be aliased to invalid_tag or does anyone have an idea for a target?

After:

category arms -> invalid
alias light_arms -> arms
alias light_butt -> butt
alias light_horn -> horn
alias light_areola -> areola
alias light_scales -> scales
alias light_shirt -> shirt
alias light_t-shirt -> t-shirt

snpthecat said:
What do you think of nuking the more populated tags which are getting aliased to an invalid tag? I don't think there's much enthusiasm for cleaning them up

What if we mass-removed the invalid tags after aliasing?

wandering_spaniel said:
What if we mass-removed the invalid tags after aliasing?

That's more than an hour of work for privileged users with tag scripts, if it's getting approved the approver can nuke them too

Wouldn't be better to leave dark/light fur to use with grayscale uploads or its fine to just use black/white/gray fur on them?

The bulk update request #7609 is pending approval.

create alias light_wings (160) -> wings (438382)
create alias light_toes (160) -> toes (461098)
create alias light_border (129) -> border (105413)
create alias light_glans (171) -> glans (90294)
create alias light_anus (132) -> anus (593500)
remove alias light_tufts (0) -> light_tuft (142)
remove implication light_tuft (142) -> tuft (496362)
create alias light_eyelids (146) -> eyelids (1753)
create alias light_pupils (115) -> pupils (123076)
create alias light_stripes (126) -> stripes (188747)
remove implication light_markings (270) -> markings (440376)
remove alias light_marking (0) -> light_markings (270)
remove implication light_inner_ear_fluff (131) -> inner_ear_fluff (131382)
create alias light_back (93) -> back (0)
remove alias mouth (208) -> invalid_tag (0)
create alias light_sheath (79) -> sheath (98870)
create alias light_paws (78) -> paws (299384)
create alias light_spots (83) -> spots (101452)
remove implication light_bridal_gauntlets (0) -> light_armwear (67)

Reason: continued
Also moving mouth to the invalid category to match other body part tags

After:

alias light_tuft -> tuft
alias light_markings -> markings
alias light_inner_ear_fluff -> inner_ear_fluff
category mouth -> invalid
alias light_mouth -> mouth
alias light_armwear -> armwear

notknow said:
Wouldn't be better to leave dark/light fur to use with grayscale uploads or its fine to just use black/white/gray fur on them?

Yeah, it's better to use black/white/grey than relative terms.

notknow said:
Wouldn't be better to leave dark/light fur to use with grayscale uploads or its fine to just use black/white/gray fur on them?

I would just tag fur, no color, for those personally since i feel like light/dark still has the same vagueness issues there

snpthecat said:
That's more than an hour of work for privileged users with tag scripts, if it's getting approved the approver can nuke them too

Hang on do I need to change the BURs for this? I'm not sure how nuking works

wandering spaniel said:

I can't think of a good alias target for light_head... should it be aliased to invalid_tag or does anyone have an idea for a target?

We could unalias head from invalid tag and alias it there. Or change its category to invalid directly. light head might be referring to lightheadedness but I doubt it'll be mistagged that way frequently

wandering_spaniel said:
However! I'm leaving light/dark_skin (and *_body) out for now since they are used for human skin tones and human skin tone tagging might need further discussion?

I think they can still go, as it falls prey to the same subjectivity and vagueness. I've seen dark_skin used plenty of times on skin that's just barely tanned, and I've seen it used on light grey skin, things I'd never consider describing as "dark". Having the same tag also cover dark brown and pitch black skin makes it too broad to be meaningful, and leaves barely any room for light_skin (which ranges from white skin, to pale skin, to some overlap with lighter "dark skin" tones).

In either case, *_body should certainly still go. Even if light_skin/dark_skin stay in some fashion, there's no point to keeping *_body also for people to tag it on fur/scale/feather/ambiguous-material bodies when it's only applicable to skin.

The bulk update request #7610 is pending approval.

remove implication light_skin (26474) -> light_body (33393)
remove implication dark_skin (27745) -> dark_body (36211)

Reason: Skin/body can have its own BUR I suppose, just in case. The rest of the necessary deimplications are in above BURs or will be in below BURs

After:

alias light_skin -> skin
alias light_body -> body
alias dark_skin -> skin
alias dark_body -> body

wandering_spaniel said:
After:

alias light_skin -> skin
alias dark_skin -> skin

light_skin and dark_skin probably ought to be kept. in most cases these are referring to human skin tones, and I think we'd rather not venture into the potential minefield removing these would create.

The bulk update request #7611 is pending approval.

remove alias light_paw_pads (0) -> light_pawpads (95)
remove alias light_paw_pad (0) -> light_pawpads (95)
remove alias light_pawpad (0) -> light_pawpads (95)
remove implication light_pawpads (95) -> pawpads (277884)
create alias light_perineum (67) -> perineum (65480)
create alias light_speedo (62) -> speedo (11595)
create alias light_thigh_highs (66) -> thigh_highs (147635)
create alias light_beard (60) -> beard (60641)
create alias light_socks (57) -> socks (70420)
create alias light_neckwear (49) -> neckwear (14013)
create alias light_mane (52) -> mane (54532)
create alias light_foreskin (51) -> foreskin (177036)

Reason: continued

after:

alias light_pawpads -> pawpads

wandering_spaniel said:
The bulk update request #7610 is pending approval.

remove implication light_skin (26474) -> light_body (33393)
remove implication dark_skin (27745) -> dark_body (36211)

Reason: Skin/body can have its own BUR I suppose. The rest of the necessary deimplications are in above BURs or will be in below BURs

After:

alias light_skin -> skin
alias light_body -> body
alias dark_skin -> skin
alias dark_body -> body

Why is Nimphia neutral about this one?

coffeeco said:
Why is Nimphia neutral about this one?

Same reasons people have already said. They're subjective but I'm still wary given the usage to refer to actual human(oid) skin tone.

This isn’t the best reason for keeping these, but I feel like these have some actual utility on monochrome posts since you can’t tag colors on those. grey_fur is not valid on an entirely greyscale post because the entire artwork is gray. But you can at least tag it as light or dark, and that shouldn’t be too ambiguous in most cases, unlike with full color pieces.
That’s sort of a niche use though, so it probably doesn’t matter too terribly much if these go.

edit: also, I feel like, even in full color artwork, particularly light colored or dark colored bodies/clothes etc. are noteworthy enough to tag. Like a character with super dark blue fur just does not look the same as a character with like a bright pastel baby blue color of fur. I would love for people to stop using these tags on everything that’s even slightly light or slightly dark. That’s really quite useless, and largely gets into subjective territory.

The bulk update request #7613 is pending approval.

Reason: continued

after:

alias light_beak -> beak
alias light_toenails -> toenails
alias light_nails -> nails

The bulk update request #7615 is pending approval.

Reason: continued

after:

alias light_fingernails -> fingernails
alias light_pseudo_hair -> pseudo_hair

Huh, I'm interested in why Milly is opposed to these BURs. Besides the niche use case mentioned by scaliespe (and in that case I would argue they'll be much better off renamed because it's currently mistagged frequently), is it useful elsewhere?

The bulk update request #7616 is pending approval.

Reason: continued

The bulk update request #7617 is pending approval.

Reason: continued

after:

alias light_knot -> knot
alias light_kerchief -> kerchief
alias light_neckerchief -> neckerchief
alias light_bandanna -> bandanna
alias light_headkerchief -> headkerchief
alias light_handkerchief -> handkerchief
alias light_shemagh -> shemagh
alias light_hooves -> hooves
alias light_tattoo -> tattoo

The bulk update request #7618 is pending approval.

Reason: There's a couple more pages of light tags with very few posts... but I'm calling it here for right now, for my sanity. Onto the dark tags.

The bulk update request #7619 is pending approval.

Reason: after:

alias dark_areola -> areola
alias dark_penis -> penis
alias dark_boxing_gloves -> boxing_gloves
alias dark_gloves -> gloves
alias dark_mittens -> mittens
alias dark_fingerless_gloves -> fingerless_gloves
alias dark_elbow_gloves -> elbow_gloves

The bulk update request #7620 is pending approval.

create alias dark_ears (1036) -> ears (0)
create alias dark_tail (765) -> tail (1541914)
create alias dark_eyelids (809) -> eyelids (1753)
create alias dark_claws (747) -> claws (586863)
remove alias dark_marking (0) -> dark_markings (571)
remove implication dark_markings (571) -> markings (440376)
create alias dark_balls (515) -> balls (1152168)
create alias dark_face (419) -> face (0)
remove implication dark_horn (382) -> horn (719102)
create alias dark_anus (435) -> anus (593500)
create alias dark_hands (322) -> hands (2)
remove implication dark_t-shirt (46) -> dark_shirt (181)
remove implication dark_t-shirt (46) -> t-shirt (31835)
create alias dark_stripes (344) -> stripes (188747)
create alias dark_feet (254) -> feet (673973)
create alias dark_pants (17) -> pants (195480)
create alias dark_legs (247) -> legs (0)
create alias dark_inner_ear (241) -> ears (0)
remove alias dark_paw_pad (0) -> dark_pawpads (271)
remove alias dark_pawpad (0) -> dark_pawpads (271)
remove alias dark_paw_pads (0) -> dark_pawpads (271)
remove implication dark_pawpads (271) -> pawpads (277884)

Reason: after:

alias dark_markings -> markings
alias dark_horn -> horn
alias dark_shirt -> shirt
alias dark_t-shirt -> t-shirt
alias dark_pawpads -> pawpads
alias dark_arms -> arms

snpthecat said:
Huh, I'm interested in why Milly is opposed to these BURs.

"Milly"?

dba_afish said:
"Milly"?

OneFattyCatty

The bulk update request #7621 is pending approval.

Reason: dark_belly is a mess of actual bellies, reverse_countershading, regular countershading, and characters with fully dark bodies and abs/flat stomachs and will need manual cleanup before it can be aliased anywhere

after:

alias dark_butt -> butt
alias dark_tattoo -> tattoo
alias dark_toenails -> toenails
alias dark_nails -> nails
alias dark_beak -> beak

wandering_spaniel said:
The bulk update request #7621 is pending approval.

create alias dark_lips (311) -> lips (72406)
create alias dark_glans (259) -> glans (90294) # has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
create alias dark_fingers (197) -> fingers (560728)
create alias dark_wings (167) -> wings (438382)
create alias dark_thigh_highs (162) -> thigh_highs (147635)
create alias dark_spots (194) -> spots (101452)
create alias dark_breasts (200) -> breasts (1882054)
create alias dark_mane (148) -> mane (54532)
remove alias dark_ass (0) -> dark_butt (140)
remove alias dark_booty (0) -> dark_butt (140)
remove implication dark_butt (140) -> butt (1117358)
remove implication dark_tattoo (115) -> tattoo (69962)
create alias dark_border (116) -> border (105413)
create alias dark_collar (129) -> collar (281813)
create alias dark_chest (101) -> chest_(disambiguation) (3)
remove implication dark_toenails (0) -> dark_nails (132)
remove implication dark_toenails (0) -> toenails (4931)
remove implication dark_beak (101) -> beak (113341)
create alias dark_tongue (140) -> tongue (921730)
create alias dark_toes (99) -> toes (461098)
create alias dark_paws (101) -> paws (299384)

Reason: dark_belly is a mess of actual bellies, reverse_countershading, regular countershading, and characters with fully dark bodies and abs/flat stomachs and will need manual cleanup before it can be aliased anywhere

after:

alias dark_butt -> butt
alias dark_tattoo -> tattoo
alias dark_toenails -> toenails
alias dark_nails -> nails
alias dark_beak -> beak

Dark_glans has BTR from topic #40089

The bulk update request #7622 is pending approval.

Reason: after:

alias dark_bridal_gauntlets -> bridal_gauntlets
alias dark_armwear -> armwear
alias dark_fingernails -> fingernails
alias dark_tuft -> tuft
alias dark_pseudo_hair -> pseudo_hair

snpthecat said:
Dark_glans has BTR from topic #40089

thank you!

The bulk update request #7623 is pending approval.

Reason: after:

alias dark_hooves -> hooves
alias dark_tail_tip -> dipstick_tail
alias dark_mouth -> mouth

I would really like if we don't go nuclear on this one.
I agree that we don't have to tag every single household item, and clothing with light/dark.
But I'd highly appreciate being able to search, and tag basic stuff like hair, fur, scales, skin, eyes, sclera, tail, etc. Not just for monochromes, but also for normal colored images. Dark fur, just doesn't look the same as light fur. And for stuff like dipstick_tails/_ears/glove_, and socks_markings with a light blue base, and a dark blue tip.
And if I recall correctly, one argument for not having light_color_* is "search for dark_* + color_*"
Furthermore, colors are also subjective. If you take a look at a color circle, you will pretty much always ask yourself, "At what point is that orange, a yellow. Or Blue, a purple."
Some tags are subjective to some extent. Some cultures don't even have the color blue, for instance.
Straw man: Are you saying you want to nuke all color tags now, because they are subjective?

These tags are a distraction on top of something that is already a distraction, tagging colors at all.

I think light_skin specifically serves a valuable purpose for covering the mess of the caucasian skin tone range. I can just tag that and not devote any time trying to pick out shades of salmon pink, light beige, and whatever else. These would normally get tagged tan_* for anything else, but tan_skin is its own, slightly darker skin tone so that doesn't work here. I don't think dark_skin has that same jumbled skin tone issue? Looks like dark_skin is used for every human skin tone that is darker than light_skin, which seems wrong and all kinds of bad IMO.

The bulk update request #7631 is pending approval.

Reason: last one! again there are some stragglers with very few posts but I'm calling it here for now.

after:

alias dark_kerchief -> kerchief
alias dark_handkerchief -> handkerchief
alias dark_bandanna -> bandanna
alias dark_headkerchief -> headkerchief
alias dark_neckerchief -> neckerchief
alias dark_shemagh -> shemagh

dubsthefox said:
But I'd highly appreciate being able to search, and tag basic stuff like hair, fur, scales, skin, eyes, sclera, tail, etc. Not just for monochromes, but also for normal colored images. Dark fur, just doesn't look the same as light fur.

But what one may call dark fur another may call light or neutral. Some shade of fur may be described as dark when in a lighter environment, and that same shade be described as light when in a darker environment. What constitutes "dark" separate from "light"? As it is, I see plenty of posts tagged as dark_skin like this:
post #4712292 post #4714411
which I would in no way call "dark" and would never consider tagging "dark" (I'd actually remove them as being mistags, if they weren't indicative of the much wider issue of them being vague and subjective, and prefer them nuked).

I just don't see the use of these tags when you have posts like
post #4681521 post #4276486
both under the "dark_skin" umbrella. There's basically nothing it can't apply to outside of pasty-white skin.

Meanwhile, posts like
post #4713326 post #4710641
are under light_skin despite the skin being the same as or darker than some dark_skin examples. There's a lot of overlap and no clearly defined or easily measurable range they adhere to.

Light skin: post #4683407
dark skin: post #4675658

And all this is multiplied when considering fur, scales, feathers, and other non-skin body materials, where you get a much wider range of colors that affect our perception of being "light" vs "dark" (and the ambiguity of referring to the particular shade as being light/dark, e.g. light red vs dark red, or a more holistic determination, e.g. light blue being generally darker than light pink).

watsit said:

But what one may call dark fur another may call light or neutral. Some shade of fur may be described as dark when in a lighter environment, and that same shade be described as light when in a darker environment. What constitutes "dark" separate from "light"? As it is, I see plenty of posts tagged as dark_skin like this:
post #4712292 post #4714411
which I would in no way call "dark" and would never consider tagging "dark" (I'd actually remove them as being mistags, if they weren't indicative of the much wider issue of them being vague and subjective, and prefer them nuked).

I just don't see the use of these tags when you have posts like
post #4681521 post #4276486
both under the "dark_skin" umbrella. There's basically nothing it can't apply to outside of pasty-white skin.

Meanwhile, posts like
post #4713326 post #4710641
are under light_skin despite the skin being the same as or darker than some dark_skin examples. There's a lot of overlap and no clearly defined or easily measurable range they adhere to.

Light skin: post #4683407
dark skin: post #4675658

And all this is multiplied when considering fur, scales, feathers, and other non-skin body materials, where you get a much wider range of colors that affect our perception of being "light" vs "dark" (and the ambiguity of referring to the particular shade as being light/dark, e.g. light red vs dark red, or a more holistic determination, e.g. light blue being generally darker than light pink).

I don't understand how some mistagged posts would justify killing a tag. If you search for dark_body most of it is actually a dark body.
And I don't understand how the "complexity" of it would justify killing a tag. If you don't like to use it because it is too "complex" just don't use it. No one is forced to use it.

dubsthefox said:
I don't understand how some mistagged posts would justify killing a tag. If you search for dark_body most of it is actually a dark body.

These aren't just "some mistagged posts". There are plenty more I found that I would hesitate to (or outright wouldn't) call "dark", but I avoided throwing up too many examples and just went with these that weren't too extreme in content (a number involved young characters) and clearly displayed the point (had few characters, with the character in question being focused on). And to avoid getting side-tracked into a debate about whether a given example could be called "dark" or "light" (though perhaps using some of those would've strengthened that point about vagueness and subjectivity, like post #4692279 or post #4690604 ).

dubsthefox said:
And I don't understand how the "complexity" of it would justify killing a tag. If you don't like to use it because it is too "complex" just don't use it. No one is forced to use it.

It's not about being "complex", it's about being vague and subjective with no clear way to determine whether a given body tone qualifies as "light" or "dark". dark_body gets used on anything that's not pasty-white, ranging from a slight tan to pitch black, while there's plenty of uses of light_body that are actually darker than some dark bodies. That a lot of time it seems to be used as a relative qualifier, where one character has a slightly darker body than another but it would be far more ambiguous or neutral-looking if it was just them alone. And this all being further muddled when including colors outside of the normal human skin tone range.

watsit said:
It's not about being "complex", it's about being vague and subjective with no clear way to determine whether a given body tone qualifies as "light" or "dark". dark_body gets used on anything that's not pasty-white, ranging from a slight tan to pitch black, while there's plenty of uses of light_body that are actually darker than some dark bodies. That a lot of time it seems to be used as a relative qualifier, where one character has a slightly darker body than another but it would be far more ambiguous or neutral-looking if it was just them alone. And this all being further muddled when including colors outside of the normal human skin tone range.

Agreed. It's basically used to mean white vs not white or even just potentially not white, which has... weird undertones

wandering_spaniel said:
The bulk update request #7631 is pending approval.

create alias dark_pasties (15) -> pasties (13753)
remove implication dark_kerchief (6) -> kerchief (33944)
remove implication dark_handkerchief (0) -> dark_kerchief (6)
remove implication dark_handkerchief (0) -> handkerchief (425)
remove implication dark_bandanna (1) -> dark_kerchief (6)
remove implication dark_bandanna (1) -> bandanna (6)
remove implication dark_headkerchief (0) -> dark_kerchief (6)
remove implication dark_headkerchief (0) -> headkerchief (1242)
remove implication dark_neckerchief (0) -> dark_kerchief (6)
remove implication dark_neckerchief (0) -> neckerchief (11271)
remove implication dark_shemagh (0) -> dark_kerchief (6)
remove implication dark_shemagh (0) -> shemagh (147)
create alias dark_corset (10) -> corset (11297)
create alias dark_hairband (7) -> hairband (16461)
create alias dark_thong (10) -> thong (39670)
create alias dark_barbell_piercing (5) -> barbell_piercing (10740)
create alias dark_speech_bubble (5) -> speech_bubble (269651)
create alias dark_crop_top (8) -> crop_top (33192)
create alias dark_arthropod_abdomen (4) -> arthropod_abdomen (7993)
create alias dark_baseball_cap (4) -> baseball_cap (13437)
create alias dark_bracelet (8) -> bracelet (66093)
create alias dark_boxers (4) -> boxers_(clothing) (8117)
create alias dark_headgear (132) -> headgear (320717)

Reason: last one! again there are some stragglers with very few posts but I'm calling it here for now.

after:

alias dark_kerchief -> kerchief
alias dark_handkerchief -> handkerchief
alias dark_bandanna -> bandanna
alias dark_headkerchief -> headkerchief
alias dark_neckerchief -> neckerchief
alias dark_shemagh -> shemagh

I upvoted this one specifically because these are all definitely useless.

I do think that most of these tags, in fact, are exceedingly useless. Honestly, I’d prefer if you just moved all of the major tags into a separate BUR to be debated separately. Nobody with any sense is likely to object to getting rid of dark_neckerchief or light_speech_bubble. Those, at least, could be pushed through quickly without being weighed down by arguments and disagreements over the really major tags like light_body. You already made a separate one for skin, so you could just stick body, hair, fur/scales/feathers, and maybe and a few other major ones like clothing and maybe eyes in there and let that be a separate debate.

First of all, thank you Wandering Spaniel for your insane effort on cleaning up tags, it's much appreciated! I too believe that almost all of these tags are overkill and just add clutter. I agree with everything, but I would keep the following tags:

• dark_body and dark_skin: I view them as the character having a black skin tone (or having a suntan'ish body color).
• light_body and light_skin: I would say they are implied by default (when dark_body / dark_skin are not tagged), but it's better to still have them for various body color range / shading reasons other people might have.

Again, thank you for your efforts Wandering Spaniel. Must've took you many hours to prepare this BUR! You have my respect. 👍

scaliespe said:
I upvoted this one specifically because these are all definitely useless.

I do think that most of these tags, in fact, are exceedingly useless. Honestly, I’d prefer if you just moved all of the major tags into a separate BUR to be debated separately. Nobody with any sense is likely to object to getting rid of dark_neckerchief or light_speech_bubble. Those, at least, could be pushed through quickly without being weighed down by arguments and disagreements over the really major tags like light_body. You already made a separate one for skin, so you could just stick body, hair, fur/scales/feathers, and maybe and a few other major ones like clothing and maybe eyes in there and let that be a separate debate.

Certainly I can do that. Just body texture, hair, clothing, and eyes?

The bulk update request #7770 is pending approval.

Reason: Body texture, hair, eyes

After:

alias light_fur -> fur
alias light_exoskeleton -> exoskeleton
alias light_feathers -> feathers
alias light_scales -> scales
alias dark_exoskeleton -> exoskeleton
alias dark_scales -> scales
alias dark_feathers -> feathers
alias dark_fur -> fur

The bulk update request #7771 is pending approval.

Reason: Clothing
How many of the more specific clothing tags do we want to move to this one?

After:

alias light_clothing -> clothing
alias dark_clothing -> clothing
alias light_handwear -> handwear
alias dark_handwear -> handwear

muonpen said:

• light_body and light_skin: I would say they are implied by default

People are tiptoeing around implying that the skin tone tags existing at all is racist, but if you don't have explicit tags, this happens. Not calling you out, this kind of bias happens to everyone, this is just a convenient example. We should just TWYS "close enough" like everything else with fur, skin, feathers, or scales; don't need to make it weird... and don't want to make anything "default" that shouldn't be.

arrow189 said:
People are tiptoeing around implying that the skin tone tags existing at all is racist, but if you don't have explicit tags, this happens. Not calling you out, this kind of bias happens to everyone, this is just a convenient example. We should just TWYS "close enough" like everything else with fur, skin, feathers, or scales; don't need to make it weird... and don't want to make anything "default" that shouldn't be.

It's not perfect but can we just do brown_skin/tan_skin/pink_skin/white_skin for human skintones?

arrow189 said:
People are tiptoeing around implying that the skin tone tags existing at all is racist, but if you don't have explicit tags, this happens.

Reading my sentence again, I realize it sounded kind of insensible and for that I want to apologize, it was not my intention to have any racist meaning in what I said.

I was logically thinking about how identifiable the tags are and for me at least light_body is not easily identifiable for a specific body type / skin type / color theme. I know people use the light-tags to describe lighter colors of a base color tag for example, that's one of the uses I could think of. I don't want to start a racism discussion, so I will refrain from commenting any further. Sorry again if what I said in this post was insensible, just trying to explain my logic.

wandering_spaniel said:
It's not perfect but can we just do brown_skin/tan_skin/pink_skin/white_skin for human skintones?

Those tags already exist, they just don't get used often. The problem is they can mean multiple different things. For instance, tan and white have different meanings when applied to skin, with "white skin" typically meaning "caucasian" with a skin color that's better called tan, but tan skin is usually meant for tanned skin, like when a person has been sun tanned or has a lighter brown complexion. And "black skin" occasionally meaning someone that's more of a brown color. Given what gets tagged as tan fur, if that same color tone was applied to skin it would be tagged white skin, while truly white skin is quite different.

White/light skin and brown/tan/dark skin tags just carry too much racial connotations to work as indicating actual white/light skin and brown/tan/dark skin, which carries over to the *_body tags due to implications. This is why light/dark body is the mess it is, with some people seeming to use "dark body" as a catch-all for non-caucasian skin tones, to avoid the implication of saying a character is "a brown person" or "a black person" with a skin color tag that may mean something different than intended, while other people may try to use them more objectively, resulting in "dark body" characters that are lighter than some "light body" characters.

watsit said:
Those tags already exist, they just don't get used often. The problem is they can mean multiple different things. For instance, tan and white have different meanings when applied to skin, with "white skin" typically meaning "caucasian" with a skin color that's better called tan, but tan skin is usually meant for tanned skin, like when a person has been sun tanned or has a lighter brown complexion. And "black skin" occasionally meaning someone that's more of a brown color. Given what gets tagged as tan fur, if that same color tone was applied to skin it would be tagged white skin, while truly white skin is quite different.

I know that, what I meant is tagging based on actual skin color, not percieved race. White for extremely pale, white-colored skin. Tan for skin that is the color tan (so very light brown), people of various ethnicities including caucacasian have skin this color. Brown for skin that is the color brown, no matter the exact shade (but darker than tan). Pink for a lot of caucasian people that aren't extremely pale, probably

Sure there could be things wrong with this approach though. Especially because "white" is a racial term and people might tag non-white-colored skin as white because they're thinking the character is caucasian...
<Color>_skin is how I've already always been tagging human skin color though, personally. Same as if they had blue skin or purple skin

Also I totally agree about the issues with light/dark_body. I don't like those tags, I think they should all be aliased away, hence this thread lol.

I do think we should move dark_skin specifically to the invalid category (maybe dark_skin_(invalid)), and the wiki should nicely ask people to tag tan, brown, or other colors instead. I still maintain that light_skin is a better description for the caucasian skin tone range than our other tags, and I want to say that pink_skin is a poor, misleading, or wrong description most of the time.

I think it's unrealistic to expect average taggers to stop tagging skin tones with racial bias. We could monitor the tags and hand out neutral feedback like crazy for racial skin tagging, but I think that's a losing battle and requires long-term oversight. The alternatives are aliasing those tags away (light, dark, white, black) and losing their functionality or finding new names for their intended use. Until these tags are changed, they will continue to see race-based tagging mixed with the color-based tagging that we use for everything else.

abadbird said:
I still maintain that light_skin is a better description for the caucasian skin tone range than our other tags, and I want to say that pink_skin is a poor, misleading, or wrong description most of the time.

pale_skin maybe? so that there's not a mismatch between a light tag existing and the dark tag being invalidated

Removing the arms and mouth unaliases and moving those to their own thread since they're kind of unrelated. topic #43975

abadbird said:
I still maintain that light_skin is a better description for the caucasian skin tone range than our other tags

It may be a good description, but taggers are quite divided on how to interpret/use the light_skin and dark_skin tags. If we're going to have a tag for the caucasian skin tone range, it's only fair to have tags for the skin tone ranges of other groups, and naming them in a way that won't result in heavy misuse is the problem.

dubsthefox said:
I would really like if we don't go nuclear on this one.
I agree that we don't have to tag every single household item, and clothing with light/dark.
But I'd highly appreciate being able to search, and tag basic stuff like hair, fur, scales, skin, eyes, sclera, tail, etc. Not just for monochromes, but also for normal colored images. Dark fur, just doesn't look the same as light fur. And for stuff like dipstick_tails/_ears/glove_, and socks_markings with a light blue base, and a dark blue tip.
And if I recall correctly, one argument for not having light_color_* is "search for dark_* + color_*"
Furthermore, colors are also subjective. If you take a look at a color circle, you will pretty much always ask yourself, "At what point is that orange, a yellow. Or Blue, a purple."
Some tags are subjective to some extent. Some cultures don't even have the color blue, for instance.
Straw man: Are you saying you want to nuke all color tags now, because they are subjective?

Yeah, I was wondering WTH there's a BUR trying to just nuke them. The entire point of tags like light_XXX was because light_blue_XXX was too specific. This goes too far. I haven't seen one BUR in this topic that isn't just wasting the efforts of people that went to the trouble of identifying those mixed colors/shades.

watsit said:
post #4681521

That is blatantly miss-tagged, because they meant tanned not dark. I mean seriously, it's just the same as the parent image but with a tan. Even following TWYS, it's obviously not supposed to be 'dark'.

The entire point of light_skin is to not use racist terms like "white" skin, "black" skin, etc., unless literally bone-white and inkpen-black. Might as well get rid of person of color while we're at it.

dubsthefox said:
I don't understand how some mistagged posts would justify killing a tag. If you search for dark_body most of it is actually a dark body.
And I don't understand how the "complexity" of it would justify killing a tag. If you don't like to use it because it is too "complex" just don't use it. No one is forced to use it.

Exactly. Refine the Wiki with better examples, but don't just go out and delete it all.

abadbird said:
I do think we should move dark_skin specifically to the invalid category (maybe dark_skin_(invalid)), and the wiki should nicely ask people to tag tan, brown, or other colors instead. I still maintain that light_skin is a better description for the caucasian skin tone range than our other tags, and I want to say that pink_skin is a poor, misleading, or wrong description most of the time.

I think it's unrealistic to expect average taggers to stop tagging skin tones with racial bias. We could monitor the tags and hand out neutral feedback like crazy for racial skin tagging, but I think that's a losing battle and requires long-term oversight. The alternatives are aliasing those tags away (light, dark, white, black) and losing their functionality or finding new names for their intended use. Until these tags are changed, they will continue to see race-based tagging mixed with the color-based tagging that we use for everything else.

Are they even that commonly tagged? I mean, how many actual human and humanoid posts would they apply to?

I wonder if it might make more sense to use same standards as furs and just move light_skin and dark_skin to light_body and dark_body which is already implied by light and dark fur. The rest of this just feels like an nuking of any sort of subtlety in color tagging.

alphamule said:
The entire point of tags like light_XXX was because light_blue_XXX was too specific.

Those tags don't exactly go together, though. light_x isn't intended to be for light_<color>_x -> light_x+<color>_x. Or if it was supposed to be, it lost that plot quite badly (such decomposed tags don't work well anyway; given blue_fur, red_fur, green_fur, light_fur, dark_fur, what colors are light_fur and dark_fur supposed to be combined with?). light_x is for things that are just generally light, though without a clear definition for what constitutes light vs non-light (or whether non-light is dark and non-dark is light, or if there's some kind of neutral non-light and non-dark). Considering the number of examples where light_x is darker than dark_x, along with the lack of clear definition or standard, there's no use to these tags.

alphamule said:
That is blatantly miss-tagged, because they meant tanned not dark. I mean seriously, it's just the same as the parent image but with a tan. Even following TWYS, it's obviously not supposed to be 'dark'.

Exactly the problem. See the other "dark skin" examples:
post #4712292 post #4714411 post #4675658
People infer "dark skin" to mean 'slightly tanned', 'not caucasian', or 'darker skin'. While 'light skin' can be anything from pasty-"white" skin to normal caucasian tones and slight tans. It's just all a mess with no clear way to clean them up.

Wait a second... I went through random pages of dark_skin results and it seems pretty consistent.

watsit said:
Those tags don't exactly go together, though. light_x isn't intended to be for light_<color>_x -> light_x+<color>_x. Or if it was supposed to be, it lost that plot quite badly. light_x is for things that are just generally light, though without a clear definition for what constitutes light vs non-light (or whether non-light is dark and non-dark is light, or if there's some kind of neutral non-light and non-dark). Considering the number of examples where light_x is darker than dark_x, along with the lack of clear definition or standard, there's no use to these tags.

What? What else would be the use for them besides saying something qualifies for more than one color tag? Like, didn't we already have the cyan/teal/blue/green issues? I'm not sure how light grey is different than light blue when using both grey and light color tags. The reason I assumed that they were split tags like that was the BURs/Forum topics seemed to imply that. How often are there examples like that light_x and dark_x where it isn't because of the lighting of the scene? I thought color meters were not considered the standard, but relative to surrounding colors (if they exist)? :Shrug:

watsit said:
Exactly the problem. See the other "dark skin" examples:
post #4712292 post #4714411 post #4675658
People infer "dark skin" to mean 'slightly tanned', 'not caucasian', or 'darker skin'. While 'light skin' can be anything from pasty-"white" skin to normal caucasian tones and slight tans. It's just all a mess with no clear way to clean them up.

Those are literally like 1 in 200 of results that I saw. :/

alphamule said:
What? What else would be the use for them besides saying something qualifies for more than one color tag?

Different colors have different brightnesses. Pink by default is lighter than blue, for example, so a pink_body would be more of a light_body than a pure blue_body, but it doesn't say whether it's "light pink" or not.

alphamule said:
Those are literally like 1 in 200 of results that I saw. :/

There's many more I find questionable to call "dark" too, where I can say they aren't dark, someone else can say they are, and there's no objective way to settle the disagreement. Having to get moderators involved in most "dark"/"light" posts where there's disagreement would be a lot of time wasted for them.

Ugh, I'm seeing where some of this is coming from: https://e621.net/wiki_pages/57201 "Used when a character's face is colored with a light color (like orange or yellow, for example)." Yellow and brown inks are often just darker and lighter versions of the same hue and we don't tag pink as red but whatever. I moved this paragraph down from previous post above because I realized that you replied afterwards.

watsit said:
Different colors have different brightnesses. Pink by default is lighter than blue, for example, so a pink_body would be more of a light_body than a pure blue_body, but it doesn't say whether it's "light pink" or not.

There's many more I find questionable to call "dark" too, where I can say they aren't dark, someone else can say they are, and there's no objective way to settle the disagreement. Having to get moderators involved in most "dark"/"light" posts where there's disagreement would be a lot of time wasted for them.

It almost feels like we're getting sabotaged with these BURs, though. I mean, if it works for 99% of cases? How often have we had tagging wars over this?
I agree that 'lightness' should be relative to the color involved. There's a reason that no one tags pink as 'light red'.

alphamule said:
It almost feels like we're getting sabotaged with these BURs, though. I mean, if it works for 99% of cases? How often have we had tagging wars over this?

tagging wars aren't the main reason that we shouldn't have weird, vaguely defined tags. we don't want these kinds of tags be because we don't want the tag list to be filled with a mountain of barely functional nonsense.

alphamule said:
Ugh, I'm seeing where some of this is coming from: https://e621.net/wiki_pages/57201 "Used when a character's face is colored with a light color (like orange or yellow, for example)." Yellow and brown inks are often just darker and lighter versions of the same hue and we don't tag pink as red but whatever.

There's other colors too, like tan being a light brown and tan_fur getting tagged light_fur without necessarily being 'light tan'. Trying to make light_x and dark_x tags be color modifiers to corresponding <color>_x tags would make a mess, since some colors already indicate being light or dark (e.g. tan being light brown, pink being light red, etc), and it's not uncommon for things to be multi-colored with drastically different colors, so the link between the light/dark and given <color> tag is lost (you can't tell which it's referring to, defeating the purpose).

alphamule said:
It almost feels like we're getting sabotaged with these BURs, though. I mean, if it works for 99% of cases? How often have we had tagging wars over this?

Inversely proportional to how many people tried to clean them up, I wager. For me, I've been against these tags for a while because of how vague they are and how poorly used they already are; trying to clean them up by hand would be like trying to put out a forest fire with a squirt gun (the lack of clear definition doesn't help, leaving me unsure if how I want to change them would be "correct" and result in a bap on the nose, so I just leave it since I'm not wholly sure). As I said above for the previous examples: "I'd actually remove them as being mistags, if they weren't indicative of the much wider issue of them being vague and subjective, and prefer them nuked".

watsit said:
There's other colors too, like tan being a light brown and tan_fur getting tagged light_fur without necessarily being 'light tan'. Trying to make light_x and dark_x tags be color modifiers to corresponding <color>_x tags would make a mess, since some colors already indicate being light or dark (e.g. tan being light brown, pink being light red, etc), and it's not uncommon for things to be multi-colored with drastically different colors, so the link between the light/dark and given <color> tag is lost (you can't tell which it's referring to, defeating the purpose).

Inversely proportional to how many people tried to clean them up, I wager. For me, I've been against these tags for a while because of how vague they are and how poorly used they already are; trying to clean them up by hand would be like trying to put out a forest fire with a squirt gun (the lack of clear definition doesn't help, leaving me unsure if how I want to change them would be "correct" and result in a bap on the nose, so I just leave it since I'm not wholly sure). As I said above for the previous examples: "I'd actually remove them as being mistags, if they weren't indicative of the much wider issue of them being vague and subjective, and prefer them nuked".

It just feels like throwing a lot of work away. :(

alphamule said:
It just feels like throwing a lot of work away. :(

mostly work by a banned user who was banned for creating/using the tags and another user whose tagging privileges were revoked for the same reason.

dba_afish said:
mostly work by a banned user who was banned for creating/using the tags and another user whose tagging privileges were revoked for the same reason.

Oh hell. Wait, they seriously did the many thousands of light_* and dark_* results? Or just the tags themselves?

wandering_spaniel said:
The bulk update request #7615 is pending approval.

create alias light_briefs (20) -> briefs (18873)
create alias light_stockings (20) -> stockings (118932)
create alias light_helmet (21) -> helmet (32643)
create alias light_piercing (18) -> piercing (446762)
create alias light_fundoshi (20) -> fundoshi (11063)
create alias light_cape (20) -> cape (27961)
remove implication light_fingernails (19) -> fingernails (11072)
create alias light_speech_bubble (12) -> speech_bubble (269651)
remove implication light_pseudo_hair (18) -> pseudo_hair (29608)
create alias light_armband (19) -> armband (16657)
create alias light_breastplate (14) -> breastplate (3805)
create alias light_bow_tie (12) -> bow_tie (32696)
create alias light_coat (14) -> coat (23351)
create alias light_clitoris (15) -> clitoris (128220)
create alias light_mask (15) -> mask (53666)
create alias light_eyeshadow (45) -> eyeshadow (71136)
create alias light_leggings (14) -> leggings (17806)
create alias light_talons (13) -> talons (19971)
create alias light_thigh_socks (13) -> thigh_socks (8265)
create alias light_tail_tip (13) -> dipstick_tail (93515)
create alias light_skirt (19) -> skirt (87497)
create alias light_boots (21) -> boots (83645)
create alias light_crop_top (6) -> crop_top (33192)
create alias light_ring_piercing (9) -> ring_piercing (163328)

Reason: continued

after:

alias light_fingernails -> fingernails
alias light_pseudo_hair -> pseudo_hair

I just spotted a weird one here: create alias light_sword (14) -> sword (37134)
This tag seems to be not for light-colored swords, but for... swords made of light.
I'm not sure if that's valid either, but it can definitely be aliased to something more specific if not. And maybe it is valid, but it should have its own discussion either way.

alphamule said:
Oh hell. Wait, they seriously did the many thousands of light_* and dark_* results? Or just the tags themselves?

at least a pretty large chunk, yeah, along with a lot more overly vague, overly specific, or just not-super-useful color tags. Kog and Fluff are kind of the reason we have all of the tags that have lead to a few posts hitting the 2k tagcount limit, along with their behavior passively encouraging a few other users to take up similar bad tagging practices (although the existence of most_tagged didn't help).

dba_afish said:
at least a pretty large chunk, yeah, along with a lot more overly vague, overly specific, or just not-super-useful color tags. Kog and Fluff are kind of the reason we have all of the tags that have lead to a few posts hitting the 2k tagcount limit, along with their behavior passively encouraging a few other users to take up similar bad tagging practices (although the existence of most_tagged didn't help).

Well dang, being able to tell different shades of green or blue apart was kind of handy for a certain unpopular feral pony-related copyright tag.

alphamule said:
Well dang, being able to tell different shades of green or blue apart was kind of handy for a certain unpopular feral pony-related copyright tag.

well, we have teal now, which should help.

scaliespe said:
I just spotted a weird one here: create alias light_sword (14) -> sword (37134)
This tag seems to be not for light-colored swords, but for... swords made of light.
I'm not sure if that's valid either, but it can definitely be aliased to something more specific if not. And maybe it is valid, but it should have its own discussion either way.

Good catch thanks! Removing that

dba_afish said:
well, we have teal now, which should help.

I didn't mean blue from green. I meant stuff like this:
(fur) post #4100428 post #4723629 post #3421175
(hair) post #3310023 post #4690307 post #2428591 post #4224380
James' hair is dark but not black?

I feel that a matrix would have made these tags more consistent.

Light_truck seems to be referring to the size?
The Wiki entry and fact all of them are light trucks seems to confirm it.

alphamule said:
Light_truck seems to be referring to the size?
The Wiki entry and fact all of them are light trucks seems to confirm it.

Light truck, at least when used in the USA, refers to the weight rather than size. A light truck is a small truck that can tow or haul light loads, but not anything more than 2,000lbs usually.

alphamule said:
Light_truck seems to be referring to the size?
The Wiki entry and fact all of them are light trucks seems to confirm it.

I can't find that in my BURs, could you link the one that has it please? Good catch by the way thanks!

wandering_spaniel said:
I can't find that in my BURs, could you link the one that has it please? Good catch by the way thanks!

I didn't find it in the source of this page, but there's a ton like that when doing a tag search. A 'light' (sub?)machine gun.

https://e621.net/tags?commit=Search&page=3&search%5Bhide_empty%5D=1&search%5Bname_matches%5D=light_%2A&search%5Border%5D=count
Haha, after seeing stuff like light_loincloth (most are!) and light_clitoris (again...), I am starting to agree that we should just save them, do the updates, then remove the aliases of ones actually worth keeping. I disagree on tags like light and dark body/clothing/hair/fur and others that actually have many people using them.

Face should not become a popular tag. Are you sure you shouldn't be requesting those be removed entirely? I guess someone could script removal of that tag after the fact, if that's your plan?

A light_jacket means color or how well it insulates? English is hard!

Gonna separate these out by brightness usage versus others, soon, but here's the list. 4 pages of single-digit-tagged items that make no sense like "baseball cap" "hat" "hood" "bandanna" "beanie" "crown" "wizard hat" and I'm pretty sure I saw helmet earlier. I may have missed some but marked some with asterisk (*) that seem obvious.

wandering_spaniel said:
I can't find that in my BURs, could you link the one that has it please? Good catch by the way thanks!

It's not in your BURs