black_hair -> hair
red_hair -> hair

etc.

are we even using the hair tag anymore?

ippiki_ookami said:
are we even using the hair tag anymore?

Hair as a tag by itself, no.

I'd say it's relatively understood that hair (by itself) means head hair, and not all the other kinds of hair which has more precise and commonly used descriptive terms, like facial_hair or pubic_hair. (typing head_hair just seems odd)

Either that or it needs to go to a disembiguation page, and we use the (really odd to type) head_hair for preciseness.

Regardless, it should probably not be used in cases where "fur" is a better discriptive term (aka full body hair), though if there's exceptional hair in specific locations it should then still be used.

/opinion

I was wondering where my hair tag went. I used that one too! >:(

I understood "hair" to mean head hair, which is common but certainly far from standard on posts.

Is no tag safe now?

Okay, this is semi-related to the topic of discussion at hand, but we have been a bit hasty to eradicate the hair tag. So it's been decided that all the hair implications are being replaced.

Can we please have a longer 'discussion' next time we want to blitz a tag, because this is like the second time this has happened now in a week.

Does this mean the hair wiki needs to be updated?

Furmillionaire said:
Can we please have a longer 'discussion' next time we want to blitz a tag, because this is like the second time this has happened now in a week.

Yes, more discussion opportunities will be had if mass tag changes/blitzes are suggested in the future.

titaniachkt said:
Does this mean the hair wiki needs to be updated?

Updated? What with?

Well,there's a wiki definition of hair,but no solid explanation of when,and when not to use it (such as the discussion taking place):

ippiki_ookami said:
are we even using the hair tag anymore?

Riversyde said:
Hair as a tag by itself, no.

titaniachkt said:
Well,there's a wiki definition of hair,but no solid explanation of when,and when not to use it (such as the discussion taking place):

Just because some random user made a wiki for it doesn't mean that it's a critical tag. It was recently mass-deleted at a moderator's discretion.

ippiki_ookami said:
[The hair tag] was recently mass-deleted at a moderator's discretion.

Which is going to be undone sometime in the near future.

ippiki_ookami said:

Riversyde said:

:s

There's about 1000+ posts with the hair tag,which seemed important enough to have a proper wiki writeup for it

But,from what you two say,it's not set in stone right?

Personally I feel it's a bit unnecessary,given the different *_hair tags,but, there might be some out there who want to look at pictures of anthros/ferals/humans with hair for one reason or the other

Furmillionaire said:
Can we please have a longer 'discussion' next time we want to blitz a tag..

This sounds like a very important point
(Sometimes a topic does get pushed down to the previous pages too quickly for everyone to agree on a consensus though,maybe a temporary stick for the high priority discussions/decisions?)

titaniachkt said:
there might be some out there who want to look at pictures of anthros/ferals/humans with hair for one reason or the other

I know some people have strong opinions on scalies with hair.

Snowy said:
I know some people have strong opinions on scalies with hair.

Agreed. I happen to find a majority of hair sporting scalies pretty attractive and probably wouldnt think so if they didnt have it and vice versa for hairless. I feel hair (and lack of) can and often is a huge make or break point in appearance.