tan -> dark_skin implication

BUR #3937 has been rejected.

create implication tan -> dark_skin

This has been discussed in the past (topic #17512) and came up on Discord again when discussing Libeccio

As it stands now the distinction between tan and dark skin is entirely arbitrary. Currently the definition for dark skin is "Skin that is darker in tone than the usual Caucasian/East Asian skintone." and the wiki also states that "Characters usually have this skintone naturally, but sometimes have dark skin due to a tan", meanwhile the only definition for tan is "Skin darkened due to exposure to the sun.", which means that sans the presence of tanlines it's virtually impossible to tell them apart unless you happen to know the natural skin color of the character, and even then it should be tagged with dark_skin since 1. They would have darker sking, making it dark skin by definition and 2. The current criteria for dark skin allowing tanned skin as well

IMO, the tan tag should be used exclusively for when tanlines are visible or for when a character is canonically light-skinned, and even then if you wanted to look for tanned images of a particular character you could easily just search for character+tanline or character+dark_skin, making tan completely redundant, but you could make an argument that nuking tan completely would make it harder to search for characters with natural dark skin.

I don't think tan can be gotten rid of, simply because of popular it is, but yeah an implication is the only viable option.

Before someone complains they won't be able to search for dark skinned characters with a tan, that's already impossible so nothing will change in that respect if this goes through.

Tanline implicates tan and there are alot of posts with tanlines that are downright pale. It would be a massive job to clean out all the non dark skinned posts with tanlines even if it was deimplicated.

ion288 said:

Tanline implicates tan and there are alot of posts with tanlines that are downright pale.

So long as there's even a single centimeter of dark skin people will keep tagging it because it's there, so a lot of those posts get the tag anyway. That part of the body is pale doesn't really matter.

Trying to make a distinction based on quantity of picture affected has been proven time and time again to be wishful thinking because the average uploader doesn't care about wiki clauses. It's simply the sad reality of danbooru tagging.

nonamethanks said:

So long as there's even a single centimeter of dark skin people will keep tagging it because it's there, so a lot of those posts get the tag anyway. That part of the body is pale doesn't really matter.

Trying to make a distinction based on quantity of picture affected has been proven time and time again to be wishful thinking because the average uploader doesn't care about wiki clauses. It's simply the sad reality of danbooru tagging.

post #4207761
post #4203124
post #4202415
post #4191239

I wouldn't tag any of these as dark skin. I can't imagine anyone would. And there are a lot of images like this.

Going through with this implication would demand the removal of the tanline -> tan implication, which makes no sense. If you can see tanlines then they have a tan. Tans come in many different tones, trying to say that an image can't be tagged tan because the skin isn't dark enough despite having visible tanlines is just silly.

I expect a lot of people would like to keep artificial tans and natural dark skin separate. In practice this is hard to do, both because of natural ambiguity and because of implications from other tags, but still I think there's probably a lot of people who would want to keep these separate.

Mexiguy said:

Currently the definition for dark skin is "Skin that is darker in tone than the usual Caucasian/East Asian skintone." and the wiki also states that "Characters usually have this skintone naturally, but sometimes have dark skin due to a tan", meanwhile the only definition for tan is "Skin darkened due to exposure to the sun.", which means that sans the presence of tanlines it's virtually impossible to tell them apart unless you happen to know the natural skin color of the character, and even then it should be tagged with dark_skin since 1. They would have darker sking, making it dark skin by definition and 2. The current criteria for dark skin allowing tanned skin as well

The current wiki definition for dark skin is descriptive, not prescriptive. Meaning the wiki just describes how the tag is currently used, not how it ideally should be used. Many wikis for messy tags are written this way, because it's easier to describe a mess than fix it. So just because a wiki says something doesn't mean that's the way things should be done.

I wouldn't tag any of these as dark skin. I can't imagine anyone would.

From the first couple of rows of the first page for dark_skin tan solo alone:
post #4186497
post #4177483
post #4121765
post #4116811
post #4114776
Same skin tone as your examples

blindVigil said:

post #4207761
post #4203124
post #4202415
post #4191239

I wouldn't tag any of these as dark skin. I can't imagine anyone would. And there are a lot of images like this.

Going through with this implication would demand the removal of the tanline -> tan implication, which makes no sense. If you can see tanlines then they have a tan. Tans come in many different tones, trying to say that an image can't be tagged tan because the skin isn't dark enough despite having visible tanlines is just silly.

The amount of tan that is considered "enough" for it to be dark skin is entirely subjective, I for one would consider the first 2 examples you posted dark_skin.

Having an all-encompassing tan tag is quite dumb and a nightmare to maintain.

nonamethanks said:

From the first couple of rows of the first page for dark_skin tan solo alone:
post #4186497
post #4177483
post #4121765
post #4116811
post #4114776
Same skin tone as your examples

I personally disagree with every one of those being tagged dark skin

blindVigil said:

I personally disagree with every one of those being tagged dark skin

Well, the danbooru definition for dark skin is "darker than the usual Caucasian/East Asian skintone", so they perfecly qualify for dark skin

Also, bear in mind that the current definition for tan is "Skin darkened due to exposure to the sun", which is entirely arbitrary and impossible to know without extra information. It says nothing about a specific skin tone, and trying to rework tan into a "kinda dark but not as dark as dark skin" is completely unfeasible.

blindVigil said:

I personally disagree with every one of those being tagged dark skin

Which only calls for a general gardening of the dark skin tag; and maybe a better tag for a skintone like that.

Mexiguy said:

Well, the danbooru definition for dark skin is "darker than the usual Caucasian/East Asian skintone", so they perfecly qualify for dark skin

Also, bear in mind that the current definition for tan is "Skin darkened due to exposure to the sun", which is entirely arbitrary and impossible to know without extra information. It says nothing about a specific skin tone, and trying to rework tan into a "kinda dark but not as dark as dark skin" is completely unfeasible.

Just like evazion just said, just because the wiki says that's how it's used doesn't mean it should be used that way. I honestly think that's a ridiculous division. You're either pale as a ghost or "dark skinned" according to that definition. No one separates real life skin tones that way. You wouldn't tell someone who was outside for 20 minutes and got a slight tan that they were dark skinned.

If someone searches dark_skinned_female, is this what they're looking for? I understand that this is subjective, but the current approach is a literal black and white definition, which is not how normal people define skin tones. It's just as arbitrary no matter how you slice it.

Its not exactly uncommon to tag a post with dark skin when it contains a character that is often depicted with it.
post #4162133
post #3424570
post #4087769 (e bara)
post #4065204

This is a tag that is a nightmare to clean.

Don't forget that we also have very_dark_skin (alias: ebony) which sometimes gets mistagged with black_skin / grey_skin.

• very_dark_skin black_skin
• very_dark_skin grey_skin

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

posted here by mistake

The bulk update request #4406 (forum #178781) has been rejected by @ArizonaGreenTea.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The bulk update request #3937 (forum #175988) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.