Deprecating light_brown_hair

BUR #32414 has been approved by @evazion.

deprecate light_brown_hair

light_brown_hair might sound like a tag for "hair with a lighter shade of brown", but it's not - a quick scroll through its posts will give you an unhealthy mix of brown, blonde, and the occasional grey. The only thing this tag does is fracture searches for other hair colors, taking posts away from brown_hair, blonde_hair, and grey_hair.

These examples are all from the first 100 posts in the light_brown_hair search at the time of this BUR's creation.

• Brown: post #8278300, post #8279683, post #8281675, post #8281307, post #8283820, post #8282198, post #8280264
• Blonde: post #8282561, post #8276402, post #8280663, post #8277623, post #8276803, post #8275026, post #8275074
• Grey: post #8281112, post #8279196, post #8275252

That's not nearly all of them, but it's enough to give you an idea of just how bad this tag is. There are almost 60,000 posts that are only tagged with light_brown_hair, which means if you search brown_hair, blonde_hair, or grey_hair, you're missing out on thousands of posts just like those examples.

I wanted to include lines in the BUR like "mass update light_brown_hair brown_hair solo -> -light_brown_hair", but seeing as stuff like post #7816155 is tagged with blonde_hair, or post #8118635 is tagged with brown_hair, the whole tag needs a manual once-over.

Oh, I was thinking of submitting a BUR like this last night, considering someone created linen hair, which is pretty much just this tag but not as deeply entrenched, and it has the exact same problems to boot.

Of all the light/dark hair tags, I think this one is the worst. No one has a clear, consistent definition of light brown. Ask ten different builders, get ten different answers. This is a problem with all the light/dark hair tags, but at least...I dunno, light green hair doesn't have a color very much not green on the front page. (If only because it is taken up almost entirely by some Blue Archive character, but my point still stands.)

So let's axe this damn thing. These tags all suck, but light brown hair is by far the most egregious of them.

Knowledge_Seeker said:

So let's axe this damn thing. These tags all suck, but light brown hair is by far the most egregious of them.

I disagree. Light brown hair seems to be one of the most clear ones based on the wiki definition, especially compared to light green hair; many of the front page examples could easily be mistaken for light blue hair.

Some of AngryZapdos's brown examples include posts that have no light colors whatsoever, such as post #8279683 and post #8282198. Some of the blonde examples include ones that fit the current wiki definition, such as post #8282561 and post #8275026, both of which look significantly darker than actual blonde hair (though actual blonde hair posts were included too such as post #8275074).

If we'll need to deal with each post manually anyway, we might as well attempt to garden it so it better fits the wiki description. We shouldn't need to remove every example just because some users don't know how to tag it properly. We could also include more examples and non-examples in the wiki with embedded images, including the lightest of brown hair (but not light enough for light brown hair, of course) and the darkest of blonde hair. After doing that and sending a few DMails, it will be easier to see whether the tag is truly hopeless or not.

As for the linen hair posts, I think they should just be merged with light brown hair. I don't see any significant difference between the two.

Blank_User said:

Some of AngryZapdos's brown examples include posts that have no light colors whatsoever, such as post #8279683 and post #8282198.

That's my point. Every user has their own definition of what "light brown" is, which is why light_brown_hair is also full of yellows, greys, and dark browns. It's like silver_hair all over again, except thankfully the spectrum of mistags is smaller.

Some of the blonde examples include ones that fit the current wiki definition, such as post #8282561 and post #8275026, both of which look significantly darker than actual blonde hair (though actual blonde hair posts were included too such as post #8275074).

In what world are post #8282561 and post #8275026 more brown than yellow?

AngryZapdos said:

That's my point. Every user has their own definition of what "light brown" is, which is why light_brown_hair is also full of yellows, greys, and dark browns. It's like silver_hair all over again, except thankfully the spectrum of mistags is smaller.

And many of those mistags wouldn't happen if users were more familiar with the correct usage, just like any other tag.

In what world are post #8282561 and post #8275026 more brown than yellow?

They're dirty blonde, which is what the tag was designed for. Light brown hair may not be a perfect name, but it's still better than naming it dirty blonde hair since it could get confused with dirty blonde_hair.

I'd say post #8275026 is a bit closer to brown, and post #8282561 is closer to the middle, but still leaning towards brown. But if we have to debate the colors in those posts, I would think having an intermediate tag would help resolve some of those disputes.

If a light brown hair or dark blonde hair tag is mistagged as light brown hair or vice-versa, the differences would be subtle enough for it to still be close to what the user is searching for. If we don't have anything for light brown hair, then we're going to have users arguing about whether a post is more brown or blonde when it doesn't look anything like the average brown hair or blonde hair post.

All of these light_ and dark_tags just serve to cause people to not be able to find posts when they search the more obvious color tag. If I search brown_hair there is no reason for post #8283820 to not show up, it's even worse when I get notified that someone has removed brown_hair only to add light_brown_hair in its place.
Pain
If post #7823704 post #4809884 or post #4537744 are having their brown_hair tags removed to facilitate this mishmash garbage then I consider it tantamount to vandalism.

Also echoing the opinion that since everyone has their own personal opinion of what constitutes "light" you are going to inevitably have the weird blonde/grey/brown melting pot which is why we should stick to the broader colors which people can actually agree on and know what to expect.

Blank_User said:

They're dirty blonde, which is what the tag was designed for. Light brown hair may not be a perfect name, but it's still better than naming it dirty blonde hair since it could get confused with dirty blonde_hair.

I'd say post #8275026 is a bit closer to brown, and post #8282561 is closer to the middle, but still leaning towards brown. But if we have to debate the colors in those posts, I would think having an intermediate tag would help resolve some of those disputes.

I'm reminded of platinum_blonde_hair, which we did away with for similar reasons. When you have blonde hair that somehow doesn't qualify for blonde_hair, then something's wrong, especially when the tag for it has "brown" in the name.

If a light brown hair or dark blonde hair tag is mistagged as light brown hair or vice-versa, the differences would be subtle enough for it to still be close to what the user is searching for. If we don't have anything for light brown hair, then we're going to have users arguing about whether a post is more brown or blonde when it doesn't look anything like the average brown hair or blonde hair post.

This is not the main issue. The main issue is that the rampant mis/undertagging means users searching for brown_hair or blonde_hair are missing out on thousands of applicable posts because some other users decided those thousands of posts needed their own special hair color tag instead. I shouldn't be missing out on post #8281307 or post #8277623 when searching for brown_hair or blonde_hair because of this tomfoolery.

I open light green hair and see blue hair, purple hair, and black hair.

I open light brown hair and see blondes, brunettes, grey hair, monochrome pics, white hair, off-green, and even fucking blue.

Gradient color tags have always been shit, will always be shit, and no amount of technicalities or "this is for dirty blonde" talks will ever fix it, especially given that nobody supporting the tag will even think about gardening it to make it usable.

Veraducks said:

I open light green hair and see blue hair, purple hair, and black hair.

I open light brown hair and see blondes, brunettes, grey hair, monochrome pics, white hair, off-green, and even fucking blue.

Gradient color tags have always been shit, will always be shit, and no amount of technicalities or "this is for dirty blonde" talks will ever fix it, especially given that nobody supporting the tag will even think about gardening it to make it usable.

I would. In fact, I did a sweep of the monochrome posts just now. The main issue I'm having with the arguments against the tag is that many of them are bringing up these colors that are nowhere close to light brown and claiming it to be a valid reason to deprecate the tag. It's one thing if we're arguing that users cannot reliably distinguish between brown, blonde, and light brown. It's another to claim the tag is bad because users are just tagging anything and everything with it.

I think deprecating the tag when we haven't even established whether the situation can be improved with better compliance to the existing guidelines is premature. The increasing number of negative votes shows that some still find it useful, and the tag has about 80,000 posts. That's not a small number, yet it pales in comparison to the over 1.4 million posts each for brown hair and blonde hair. Why make it harder to find these posts when all it would accomplish would be increasing the counts of the larger tags by a relatively small amount?

And if having light brown hair posts left out of brown hair searches is that big of a concern, why not implicate it? Or better yet, just search for *brown_hair instead?

I'll see if I can find some more of the obvious mistags over the next few days. Then we'll be in a better position to argue for or against its merits.

EDIT: I think I figured out why light brown hair is tagged on so many different hair colors, particularly light blue hair. Type in "light_b" in the search bar and the first result is light brown hair, with light blue hair being the third result. Some users may be using the autocomplete as a shortcut and not paying close enough attention to what tag they select. I saw the same thing with green hair and grey hair. I even saw it with grey hair and greyscale. It doesn't explain all cases, but it could explain some of the more far-out ones.

We also need to remember that light brown hair is a valid tag if there's so much as a single hair of that color. So some posts may appear to be mistagged but are actually not. This is, of course, the natural consequence of tagging all present hair colors without separate streak tags.

And allow me to counter all of that with a very simple question: How exactly do you plan to prevent further mistags? Playing whack-a-mole with mistags is only going to get you so far when this tag keeps getting added to more and more invalid posts. And considering how much of a mess these tags are to begin with, I see such a feat as outright impossible, honestly.

The superior option remains deprecation, in my opinion, as this tag is beyond saving from the looks of things. Even if we are to assume people immediately adding the first "light_b" tag in the autocomplete plays a role (a point I will admittedly concede as playing a role in things), it doesn't change the fact that "light brown" is inherently a color shade which the definition of varies from person to person. With the end result being blonde hair and even just plain brown hair being lumped together under light brown hair, which helps absolutely no one. At least people can agree on a basic color half the time, compared to these light/dark hair tags.

I can't help but wonder if the reason this BUR is receiving such pushback is less due to their usefulness and more due to how deeply entrenched tags like this are, making, to many people, getting rid of them unthinkable. On the one hand, I understand that. But on the other, just because it's existed for a long while doesn't mean it's good. And as far as I can see, they are only muddling attempts to search for proper hair colors and even if we are to assume light brown hair is a proper hair shade (which I think the tag's severe misuse proves is false), good luck finding them amongst the sea of blonde and brown hair.

Blank_User said:

I would. In fact, I did a sweep of the monochrome posts just now. The main issue I'm having with the arguments against the tag is that many of them are bringing up these colors that are nowhere close to light brown and claiming it to be a valid reason to deprecate the tag. It's one thing if we're arguing that users cannot reliably distinguish between brown, blonde, and light brown. It's another to claim the tag is bad because users are just tagging anything and everything with it.

I think deprecating the tag when we haven't even established whether the situation can be improved with better compliance to the existing guidelines is premature. The increasing number of negative votes shows that some still find it useful, and the tag has about 80,000 posts. That's not a small number, yet it pales in comparison to the over 1.4 million posts each for brown hair and blonde hair. Why make it harder to find these posts when all it would accomplish would be increasing the counts of the larger tags by a relatively small amount?

The silver_hair BUR got plenty of downvotes, and yet was approved for much the same reasons. Just because people like using the tag doesn't mean it's a good tag. That tag, by the way, still hasn't been fully cleared out to this day; I shudder to think how many more posts it would have been added to in that time had it been left usable.

And if having light brown hair posts left out of brown hair searches is that big of a concern, why not implicate it? Or better yet, just search for *brown_hair instead?

Considering the sorry state this tag is in, implying it to brown_hair would be nothing short of mass tag vandalism. I thank my lucky stars this isn't already the case, because then the thousands of blonde and grey mistags would be poisoning brown_hair too.

We also need to remember that light brown hair is a valid tag if there's so much as a single hair of that color. So some posts may appear to be mistagged but are actually not. This is, of course, the natural consequence of tagging all present hair colors without separate streak tags.

Please keep that argument for a different thread that is actually about hair streak colors.

We don't need more than the twelve basic colors: black, brown, blonde, red, orange, pink, purple, green, blue, aqua, grey, and white. This is more than enough. More tags only create more fragmentation, and it's never enough, someone always wants just one more color.

Knowledge_Seeker said:

And allow me to counter all of that with a very simple question: How exactly do you plan to prevent further mistags? Playing whack-a-mole with mistags is only going to get you so far when this tag keeps getting added to more and more invalid posts. And considering how much of a mess these tags are to begin with, I see such a feat as outright impossible, honestly.

The superior option remains deprecation, in my opinion, as this tag is beyond saving from the looks of things. Even if we are to assume people immediately adding the first "light_b" tag in the autocomplete plays a role (a point I will admittedly concede as playing a role in things), it doesn't change the fact that "light brown" is inherently a color shade which the definition of varies from person to person. With the end result being blonde hair and even just plain brown hair being lumped together under light brown hair, which helps absolutely no one. At least people can agree on a basic color half the time, compared to these light/dark hair tags.

I already explained my plan earlier in the thread, but I do realize to choose examples to reinforce proper tagging, people need to agree on where the boundaries lie. I now see that the problem with the wiki is that the posts are median examples, so there would be some subjectivity involved (especially with display differences and all).

When I tag, I simply consider whether the post looks closer to the light brown hair example than the brown hair or blonde hair example (which wouldn't help for red hair or grey hair, but I didn't feel like I had problems with those either). Specifically, I equated light brown with tan. But I haven't run into too many borderline examples, so maybe I just don't have much experience with the inherent challenge of tagging those edge cases.

I can't help but wonder if the reason this BUR is receiving such pushback is less due to their usefulness and more due to how deeply entrenched tags like this are, making, to many people, getting rid of them unthinkable. On the one hand, I understand that. But on the other, just because it's existed for a long while doesn't mean it's good. And as far as I can see, they are only muddling attempts to search for proper hair colors and even if we are to assume light brown hair is a proper hair shade (which I think the tag's severe misuse proves is false), good luck finding them amongst the sea of blonde and brown hair.

For me, I felt that the examples in the wiki were distinct enough, and that the arguments against it were focusing on mistags that no one paying attention would actually make. The examples of every color under the rainbow being mistagged did not sound to me like something caused to a problem with that tag specifically, and my attempts to garden it only reinforced this view. I think we should be restricting this discussion to the issues that can't be attributed to autocorrect or Relevant Tags.

AngryZapdos said:

The silver_hair BUR got plenty of downvotes, and yet was approved for much the same reasons. Just because people like using the tag doesn't mean it's a good tag. That tag, by the way, still hasn't been fully cleared out to this day; I shudder to think how many more posts it would have been added to in that time had it been left usable.

I just looked through those arguments and I can respect the logic. Considering that there have been good arguments for removing such tags in the past, I changed my vote to a Neutral. However, the silver hair tag did have issues the light brown hair tag doesn't have such as shininess and the weird age requirement thing. I still think it's possible to restrict light brown hair in a way to make it usable, but I agree getting rid of silver hair was the right decision.

Considering the sorry state this tag is in, implying it to brown_hair would be nothing short of mass tag vandalism. I thank my lucky stars this isn't already the case, because then the thousands of blonde and grey mistags would be poisoning brown_hair too.

I meant after the tag was sufficiently gardened. Though as Knowledge Seeker pointed out, it won't do any good unless we are able to prevent more mistags.

Please keep that argument for a different thread that is actually about hair streak colors.

My argument wasn't about streak tags. The argument I was making was that some of these claimed mistags could be due to a hair color being present but only minimally so, which would make it eligible for the tag even if it's not obvious at first glance. The same logic can apply for characters in the background, too.

Light_brown_hair is between brown and blonde, I think this is more similar to Aqua hair, which is between blue and green.
I think light brown is very different from yellow and brown. Every time I tag this color, I feel that it is wrong to use blonde hair or brown hair. So I would like this color to have a specific tag.

finalwar said:

Light_brown_hair is between brown and blonde, I think this is more similar to Aqua hair, which is between blue and green.
I think light brown is very different from yellow and brown. Every time I tag this color, I feel that it is wrong to use blonde hair or brown hair. So I would like this color to have a specific tag.

Can you post some examples of ones you feel don't fit in brown or blonde? Looking at the first page I don't see any I'd be uncomfortable with sorting.

zetsubousensei said:

Can you post sone examples of ones you feel don't fit in brown or blonde? Looking at the first page I don't see any I'd be uncomfortable with sorting.

This may be a great example: post #1244455
Should this be 1 light brown hair + 2 brown hair + 1 blonde hair, or 3 brown hair + 1 blonde hair?

Also post #8290732 post #8289215 post #8194754 post #4433963 post #6500901
These don't look like ordinary brown or blonde hair at all.

finalwar said:

This may be a great example: post #1244455
Should this be 1 light brown hair + 2 brown hair + 1 blonde hair, or 3 brown hair + 1 blonde hair?

2 brown hair + 2 blonde hair. I'm not seeing anything about this shade of brown hair that needs its own tag.

Also post #8290732 post #8289215 post #8194754 post #4433963 post #6500901
These don't look like ordinary brown or blonde hair at all.

Really? Are you kidding me? All of these look like ordinary blonde hair. These could all go in that tag and no one would bat an eye. If this is the sort of thing going in the light brown hair tag, I think the sooner we deprecate it the better, honestly.

Knowledge_Seeker said:

2 brown hair + 2 blonde hair. I'm not seeing anything about this shade of brown hair that needs its own tag.

Really? Are you kidding me? All of these look like ordinary blonde hair. These could all go in that tag and no one would bat an eye. If this is the sort of thing going in the light brown hair tag, I think the sooner we deprecate it the better, honestly.

Honestly the fact we're using blonde hair instead of yellow hair like with other hair colors is itself a problem due to having a larger color overlap than other color hair tags. If the tag was yellow_hair would your response be the same?

Knowledge_Seeker said:

2 brown hair + 2 blonde hair. I'm not seeing anything about this shade of brown hair that needs its own tag.

Grey, brown, brown, blonde for me.

Knowledge_Seeker said:
Really? Are you kidding me? All of these look like ordinary blonde hair. These could all go in that tag and no one would bat an eye.

I would, neither of those look blonde to me.

post #7185231, the wiki example for light_brown_hair, has never been tagged with it and has always been tagged with blonde_hair...

imo the light_x_hair tag names are pretty bad because they are things that do not imply x_hair (hell, dark_blonde_hair would probably be less confusing with the current wiki definition...)

if it's going to stay, needs a better name in my opinion as brown_hair has a fairly wide accepted range of colors and something could easily be considered "light brown" without being light_brown_hair