Colored scale implications

BUR #39081 is pending approval.

create implication black_scales -> scales
create implication white_scales -> scales
create implication red_scales -> scales
create implication green_scales -> scales
create implication blue_scales -> scales
create implication yellow_scales -> scales
create implication orange_scales -> scales
create implication brown_scales -> scales
create implication pink_scales -> scales
create implication aqua_scales -> scales
create implication gold_scales -> scales
create implication gradient_scales -> scales
create implication grey_scales -> scales
create implication purple_scales -> scales
create implication multicolored_scales -> scales

Colored scale tags should imply the scales tag.

two-tone scales and rainbow scales needed 10 posts to qualify.

Purple scales already implies scales.

Sometimes these are used when you can't actually see the scales themselves because the artist didn't detail them, like post #9028274 or post #8989345. Posts like these really shouldn't be tagged scales.

The issue here is that these tags are being used for several related, but distinct things. I'll demonstrate with red_scales.

1. Animals and mythical creatures with scales (post #7877918)

2. Human and monster person characters with scaly tails (post #6944052)

3. Human and monster person characters with patches of scaly skin (post #7038937)

4. Monster person and furry characters with only scaly skin (post #8161530)

The problem with this is that anyone searching for number 4, red reptile characters, can't just search reptile_boy red_skin because they'll miss out on any posts where the tagger decided to use red_scales instead, such as the one I linked. This is a classic example of two tags being used for one thing, thus fracturing searches for both of them.

However, tagging all of these instances as red_skin brings its own problems, as nobody really wants to find option 2 in a colored skin search. Tails and ears have traditionally not counted toward skin/fur color tags, so it doesn't make sense to start tagging them like this out of the blue.

As I mentioned in the Discord when this was discussed earlier, I don't like the idea of plowing ahead with BURs before finding an acceptable compromise to these problems. As such, I've downvoted this BUR.

AngryZapdos said:

The issue here is that these tags are being used for several related, but distinct things. I'll demonstrate with red_scales.

1. Animals and mythical creatures with scales (post #7877918)

2. Human and monster person characters with scaly tails (post #6944052)

3. Human and monster person characters with patches of scaly skin (post #7038937)

4. Monster person and furry characters with only scaly skin (post #8161530)

The problem with this is that anyone searching for number 4, red reptile characters, can't just search reptile_boy red_skin because they'll miss out on any posts where the tagger decided to use red_scales instead, such as the one I linked. This is a classic example of two tags being used for one thing, thus fracturing searches for both of them.

However, tagging all of these instances as red_skin brings its own problems, as nobody really wants to find option 2 in a colored skin search. Tails and ears have traditionally not counted toward skin/fur color tags, so it doesn't make sense to start tagging them like this out of the blue.

As I mentioned in the Discord when this was discussed earlier, I don't like the idea of plowing ahead with BURs before finding an acceptable compromise to these problems. As such, I've downvoted this BUR.

Simple solution: for anthro/furry characters with scales, tag both. If a lizardgirl is entirely covered in green scales, then she clearly has green skin, so you tag both. But for a dragon, it would only have green scales, as dragons, unlike humanoids, are not expected to have skin. Similarly, a lamia with a skin tone that does not qualify as dark-skinned female but which has brown scales on her tail half would have a perfectly sensibly tagging schema, and same for a dark-skinned lamia with blue scales, who would not have to be nonsensically tagged as having blue skin.

I believe I showed an example of someone having tagged both in the Discord yesterday and in my opinion, the tagger was absolutely correct in that example to tag both.

definitelysleeping said:

Simple solution: for anthro/furry characters with scales, tag both. If a lizardgirl is entirely covered in green scales, then she clearly has green skin, so you tag both. But for a dragon, it would only have green scales, as dragons, unlike humanoids, are not expected to have skin. Similarly, a lamia with a skin tone that does not qualify as dark-skinned female but which has brown scales on her tail half would have a perfectly sensibly tagging schema, and same for a dark-skinned lamia with blue scales, who would not have to be nonsensically tagged as having blue skin.

I believe I showed an example of someone having tagged both in the Discord yesterday and in my opinion, the tagger was absolutely correct in that example to tag both.

The problem is that not all users will do this. Some of them will, but others will only use green_skin, while others still will only use green_scales. This is what I meant when I said that having two tags for the same thing fractures searches; you can never be sure the tagger will have chosen to tag both, so in order to not miss anything you end up having to search for both of them regardless.

AngryZapdos said:

The problem is that not all users will do this. Some of them will, but others will only use green_skin, while others still will only use green_scales. This is what I meant when I said that having two tags for the same thing fractures searches; you can never be sure the tagger will have chosen to tag both, so in order to not miss anything you end up having to search for both of them regardless.

I don't feel like users undertagging posts is a good reason to reject implications like this. If I go and search 'female_orc -green_skin', expecting to find mostly dark-skinned or red-skinned orcs and especially far fewer Warcraft style orcs... I nonetheless find post #5651669 which clearly ought to be tagged as green skin. But hey, since your concern is reptile girls, which skin/scales tag am I supposed to search in order to find post #8715355?

These are just undertagged posts that need gardening.

definitelysleeping said:

I don't feel like users undertagging posts is a good reason to reject implications like this. If I go and search 'female_orc -green_skin', expecting to find mostly dark-skinned or red-skinned orcs and especially far fewer Warcraft style orcs... I nonetheless find post #5651669 which clearly ought to be tagged as green skin. But hey, since your concern is reptile girls, which skin/scales tag am I supposed to search in order to find post #8715355?

These are just undertagged posts that need gardening.

Someone using one tag per concept isn't undertagging, it's normal tagging. Expecting them to add two tags for the exact same thing is ridiculous, inefficient, and counterintuitive. Having two different tags for "red skinned reptile characters" means that even when users are tagging their skin color on posts, it's still a crapshoot if other users are going to find them because A: they could have used either tag, and B: they could have searched for either tag.

AngryZapdos said:
...
2. Human and monster person characters with scaly tails (post #6944052)

However, tagging all of these instances as red_skin brings its own problems, as nobody really wants to find option 2 in a colored skin search.

Then don't add red skin to it, as it's not even applicable to it in the first place. Human skin makes it an easy distinction.

definitelysleeping said:

Simple solution: for anthro/furry characters with scales, tag both.
....
I believe I showed an example of someone having tagged both in the Discord yesterday and in my opinion, the tagger was absolutely correct in that example to tag both.

This was what I thought would be the most likely conclusion to arrive to for taggers.

AngryZapdos said:

The problem is that not all users will do this.

If we used the reasoning of "not all users will do this" then we'd be held up on making any BUR changes at all (which it does time and time again). We still have purple users who consistently confuse stirrup legwear and stirrup footwear with each other so that's not really saying much. Users might also mix up tube top and cropped shirt, but I doubt anyone would use that as a reason to do away with one of them.

The proper use for those outlier furry posts would be to label the proper color-scales tag to the parts that clearly represent rough scales. As for the kinds of characters that additionally have smooth underbellies/etc. would also get the proper colored skin tag for that area of their body.

Skin tags shouldn't be used in the same logic on the site as scales just because they are both the outer layer of the character's body. The argument to treat them both as the same thing resembles the notion for stirrup legwear to imply barefoot because they are functionally the same thing in real life.

Bionicman76 said:

If we used the reasoning of "not all users will do this" then we'd be held up on making any BUR changes at all (which it does time and time again). We still have purple users who consistently confuse stirrup legwear and stirrup footwear with each other so that's not really saying much. Users might also mix up tube top and cropped shirt, but I doubt anyone would use that as a reason to do away with one of them.

You're getting confused here. This has nothing to do with confusing one tag for another, nor is it that "not all users will do this". The issue is that even users who are tagging correctly and efficiently (ie. adding only one tag for each taggable concept) will, understandably, only add one of these two tags, both of which are being used to describe the color of the character's skin.

No tag will be used every time it applies, and I agree that that shouldn't be used as a reason against BURs. However, when two tags are serving the exact same purpose, users will often only use one or the other, and that's not their fault - it's Danbooru's fault for having both tags.

—————

The proper use for those outlier furry posts would be to label the proper color-scales tag to the parts that clearly represent rough scales. As for the kinds of characters that additionally have smooth underbellies/etc. would also get the proper colored skin tag for that area of their body.

Skin tags shouldn't be used in the same logic on the site as scales just because they are both the outer layer of the character's body. The argument to treat them both as the same thing resembles the notion for stirrup legwear to imply barefoot because they are functionally the same thing in real life.

This is probably the single worst suggestion that I've heard so far. The idea that post #8610146 should be tagged with white_skin and red_scales, but NOT red_skin, is absurd.

AngryZapdos said:

This is probably the single worst suggestion that I've heard so far. The idea that post #8610146 should be tagged with white_skin and red_scales, but NOT red_skin, is absurd.

Is it any less absurd than nuking the colored scales tags and tagging all of taras-kun_(mullmull02) as dark skin?

Obviously the colored scales tags have utility, which means both are going to exist side-by-side, and there are far too many clear counterexamples for anyone to seriously vote for an implication of red scales -> red skin. So... I suggest we set the guidance for the wikis off of an image like post #8250601 - character has red skin, so that is tagged, and the character has visible scales that are also red, so that also gets tagged. Two concepts, two tags. The same reasoning/logic should work for reptile girls too, we just need to get users to see those as two separate concepts and how/when to tag them - perhaps by gardening and setting a clear example for them to follow.

definitelysleeping said:

Is it any less absurd than nuking the colored scales tags and tagging all of taras-kun_(mullmull02) as dark skin?

Yes. The notion that I shouldn't be able find post #8610146 by searching red_skin by design is beyond ridiculous.

AngryZapdos said:

Yes. The notion that I shouldn't be able find post #8610146 by searching red_skin by design is beyond ridiculous.

'By design' implies someone intended that outcome, and I very much doubt it was intended. Now that we are aware of the unintended consequences of a set of tags meant to improve many other types of images, we're trying to address it, and you seem uninterested in the options we've suggested. Also, where is there purple skin in that image?

AngryZapdos said:

This is probably the single worst suggestion that I've heard so far. The idea that post #8610146 should be tagged with white_skin and red_scales, but NOT red_skin, is absurd.

Actually post #8610146 would only be tagged with red skin since it's clearly only smooth skin with no visible scales whatsoever, you just skipped ahead to assuming it would be mistagged. And for the record that character is an amphibian and amphibians don't have scales.

And cool it with all the hyperbole already. I haven't seen any good suggestions, insight that wasn't surface-level observation, or an example whose contentiousness didn't solely stem from being furry from you in this thread whatsoever but you don't see anyone else blowing up about it as you are in response to our suggestions.

definitelysleeping said:

'By design' implies someone intended that outcome, and I very much doubt it was intended. Now that we are aware of the unintended consequences of a set of tags meant to improve many other types of images, we're trying to address it, and you seem uninterested in the options we've suggested. Also, where is there purple skin in that image?

Is it really that surprising that I'm uninterested in poor solutions which only address half of the problems? Also, purple_skin? Did you even read my post?

—————

Bionicman76 said:

Actually post #8610146 would only be tagged with red skin since it's clearly only smooth skin with no visible scales whatsoever, you just skipped ahead to assuming it would be mistagged. And for the record that character is an amphibian and amphibians don't have scales.

post #8610146 has smooth unbroken white skin, and red skin with irregular patches, which could very easily be interpreted as scales by a number of users. But that's not important because it was just an example - the issue wasn't this one post, it was posts like it in general. If you take so much umbrage at having that particular post used as the example, then swap it out for post #8317399 and white_skin / green_scales; the issue is still the same and still relevant.

And cool it with all the hyperbole already. I haven't seen any good suggestions, insight that wasn't surface-level observation, or an example whose contentiousness didn't solely stem from being furry from you in this thread whatsoever but you don't see anyone else blowing up about it as you are in response to our suggestions.

Valid issues that your suggested tagging policies will cause are not hyperbole, and someone saying that your idea is terrible does not mean they are "blowing up about it". I don't know what the best path forward for these tags is, which is something I've mentioned several times to you specifically during this whole discussion. I don't have to come up with a perfect fix just because I pointed out obvious flaws in yours, just as you wouldn't have to if I were the one proposing a one-sided convenience.

AngryZapdos said:

Is it really that surprising that I'm uninterested in poor solutions which only address half of the problems? Also, purple_skin? Did you even read my post?

I believe they're referring to the fact that your example of post #8610146 is currently (mis?)tagged with purple skin in addition to red skin and white skin.

Ylimegirl said:

I believe they're referring to the fact that your example of post #8610146 is currently (mis?)tagged with purple skin in addition to red skin and white skin.

Oh, I didn't even notice that. My apologies, then.

AngryZapdos said:

Is it really that surprising that I'm uninterested in poor solutions which only address half of the problems? Also, purple_skin? Did you even read my post?

—————

post #8610146 has smooth unbroken white skin, and red skin with irregular patches, which could very easily be interpreted as scales by a number of users. But that's not important because it was just an example - the issue wasn't this one post, it was posts like it in general. If you take so much umbrage at having that particular post used as the example, then swap it out for post #8317399 and white_skin / green_scales; the issue is still the same and still relevant.

Valid issues that your suggested tagging policies will cause are not hyperbole, and someone saying that your idea is terrible does not mean they are "blowing up about it". I don't know what the best path forward for these tags is, which is something I've mentioned several times to you specifically during this whole discussion. I don't have to come up with a perfect fix just because I pointed out obvious flaws in yours, just as you wouldn't have to if I were the one proposing a one-sided convenience.

1. nice artwork and a great example of the issue.

2. I hope someone tags it appropriately when we're done discussing this, as it has only the colored skin tag presently

3. I think we can all agree that it should be tagged white skin and *not* white scales, correct?

4. That leaves only green in contention, correct?

So, that leaves us with the issue that you feel that a single tag should be able to tag a single concept. But that's often just not possible, even with perfectly mundane elements. If I want to describe Marcille's hairstyle in post #7066434, I can't describe that as *just* a half-up braid or *just* braided sidelocks. It's both, and also blonde hair and long hair, etc.

So... humanoids (furry or otherwise) should probably always be tagged as <color>_skin found on any humanoid body part, such as an arm, legs, etc, and any animal parts, such as tails, non-humanoid limbs, etc can be considered separately. This would ensure you can always find reptile girls who are tagged correctly with the corresponding skin tags.

BUT... they should then *also* have an appropriate <color>_scales tag if they have a patch of scales, even if that 'patch' covers their entire body.

I know this requires users to tag both, but they're already frequently tagging neither, so gardening is needed regardless.

This has the added benefit that searching for scales would not return humanoid characters that have no visible scale patterns (when tagged correctly), and is no more complicated than expecting a user to tag both hairstyles in the example I provided with Marcille.

AngryZapdos said:

...
Then swap it out for post #8317399 and white_skin / green_scales; the issue is still the same and still relevant.
...

This would be green skin and white skin.

AngryZapdos said:

Valid issues that your suggested tagging policies will cause are not hyperbole, and someone saying that your idea is terrible does not mean they are "blowing up about it"

I was referring to "This is probably the single worst suggestion that I've heard so far"; and it's use without any recognition of irony.

AngryZapdos said:

I don't have to come up with a perfect fix just because I pointed out obvious flaws in yours, just as you wouldn't have to if I were the one proposing a one-sided convenience.

None of this is anywhere near as complicated as you make it out to be.

Friendly reminder that this BUR vote is about scale color implicating the scales tag, not the dynamic of using the scales tag as a whole. This discussion would better fit in its own separate thread.

definitelysleeping said:

4. That leaves only green in contention, correct?

Assuming you mean post #8317399 it would be green skin; Otherwise I'm not sure why it would be a different problem.

Bionicman76 said:

This would be green skin and white skin.

I was referring to "This is probably the single worst suggestion that I've heard so far"; and it's use without any recognition of irony.

None of this is anywhere near as complicated as you make it out to be.

Friendly reminder that this BUR vote is about scale color implicating the scales tag, not the dynamic of using the scales tag as a whole. This discussion would better fit in its own separate thread.

Assuming you mean post #8317399 it would be green skin; Otherwise I'm not sure why it would be a different problem.

Yes, for that specific post it should have green skin. The only 'scale-like' thing is that pattern, which again resembles the sort of pattern you would find on salamanders. But when there *are* clear scales, I'm arguing that scales be treated as a separate concept from skin color for humanoid body parts.

ie, if a lamia has normal human skin tones above the waist and red scales below the waist, that's just red scales. If they have normal human skin tones but patches of red scales where the skin is otherwise a normal human skin tone, that is still just red scales. But if they have entirely red torso/arms/etc, that's red skin in addition to the red scales. I have an example of each of those below, which I believe were already tagged the way I'm suggesting, which means users are already intuitively following my suggestion:

1. post #7178074

2. post #7481470

3. post #8966796

Yes, these are all lamias. I'm not personally interested in reptile girls despite how nice Zapdos' example was, so I'm using something I know well that should translate well. For reptile girls, they're going to have humanoid arms and legs, and if those are fully colored, they should get a matching skin tag, just like example 3. If they have a scaled tail that is a certain color not found on the rest of their body, then that only calls for a scales tag.

definitelysleeping said:

So, that leaves us with the issue that you feel that a single tag should be able to tag a single concept. But that's often just not possible, even with perfectly mundane elements. If I want to describe Marcille's hairstyle in post #7066434, I can't describe that as *just* a half-up braid or *just* braided sidelocks. It's both, and also blonde hair and long hair, etc.

So... humanoids (furry or otherwise) should probably always be tagged as <color>_skin found on any humanoid body part, such as an arm, legs, etc, and any animal parts, such as tails, non-humanoid limbs, etc can be considered separately. This would ensure you can always find reptile girls who are tagged correctly with the corresponding skin tags.

BUT... they should then *also* have an appropriate <color>_scales tag if they have a patch of scales, even if that 'patch' covers their entire body.

I know this requires users to tag both, but they're already frequently tagging neither, so gardening is needed regardless.

This has the added benefit that searching for scales would not return humanoid characters that have no visible scale patterns (when tagged correctly), and is no more complicated than expecting a user to tag both hairstyles in the example I provided with Marcille.

Marcille's hair is a poor comparison. Both of those braid tags are specifically for different parts of the hair; it'd be like arguing that fur_collar and fur-trimmed_sleeves are the same thing when they're clearly not. At the very least, I will say I'm less apprehensive about the "both tags" approach than the "don't tag scales as skin" suggestion.

—————

Bionicman76 said:

I was referring to "This is probably the single worst suggestion that I've heard so far"; and it's use without any recognition of irony.

Again, I'm allowed to find nothing of value in your (or anyone's) proposals, just as you or any other user is allowed to find nothing in mine. If you can't get past that, then maybe the Danbooru forums aren't for you.

Friendly reminder that this BUR vote is about scale color implicating the scales tag, not the dynamic of using the scales tag as a whole. This discussion would better fit in its own separate thread.

Friendly reminder that I mentioned these issues with the scale tags should be resolved before someone started making BURs for them. In fact, I mentioned this several times in a discussion you were actively taking part in, and at least once directly to you. You're the one who charged ahead and made the BUR despite being aware of these concerns, so please don't turn around and act as if they belong in a seperate topic.