Posted under Tags
BUR #19247 has been rejected.
create implication dark_green_hair -> green_hair
create implication dark_red_hair -> red_hair
create implication light_green_hair -> green_hair
create implication light_purple_hair -> purple_hair
If these tags are to exist, they should imply the base colour, but I'd rather we alias them because they have resulted in several light_colour and dark_colour tags for other things.
BUR #19248 has been rejected.
create alias dark_green_hair -> green_hair
create alias dark_red_hair -> red_hair
create alias light_green_hair -> green_hair
create alias light_purple_hair -> purple_hair
The other, better option.
I don't have strong opinions on this but since it has been brought up again it's an opportunity to quote what forum #219744 and forum #219759 said. There are many instances of "white/grey/black hair shining another color", the light and dark tags have a higher concentration, I'm not sure if their effects on our color tagging system are wanted or not. Though maybe it's too late now that blue hair has already been merged without much discussion, since it's the closest to white, grey, black (and purple) hair.
magcolo said:
I don't have strong opinions on this but since it has been brought up again it's an opportunity to quote what forum #219744 and forum #219759 said. There are many instances of "white/grey/black hair shining another color", the light and dark tags have a higher concentration, I'm not sure if their effects on our color tagging system are wanted or not. Though maybe it's too late now that blue hair has already been merged without much discussion, since it's the closest to white, grey, black (and purple) hair.
That's true, it's a well-known fact that a lot of our taggers are either colour blind or have crappy monitors. I doubt deprecating is a better option though.
I don't think any of the light or dark hair color tags are a good idea. They just fragment existing colors into multiple tags that have just as much garbage and inconsistency as before. The question goes from "is this blue hair or green hair or aqua hair?" to "is this blue, green, aqua, light blue, light green, or light purple?". It goes from "is this red hair or brown hair?" to "is this red, dark red, or brown?".
Take a look at these posts:
The fact that these tags are used so inconsistently and have so many obvious mistags tells me no one paying that much attention to them.
The more choices you have, the harder it is to get everyone to use them properly. At least when your only choice is green hair, it becomes very obvious that things like post #6694978 and post #6182226 aren't green hair.
The bulk update request #19247 (forum #251329) has been rejected by @evazion.
The bulk update request #19248 (forum #251330) has been rejected by @evazion.
BUR #20259 has been approved by @evazion.
deprecate dark_green_hair
deprecate dark_red_hair
deprecate light_green_hair
deprecate light_purple_hair
I think these tags have too much garbage to be able to directly alias them away, so I'll deprecate them instead.
AI tags are very helpful in trying to find mistagged posts:
The bulk update request #20259 (forum #255866) has been approved by @evazion.
evazion said:
- dark green hair: post #6694978, post #5389756, post #4987871, post #4160710
- light green hair: post #6649988, post #6605643, post #6182226, post #5144514
- dark red hair: post #6759470, post #6592856, post #5621014, post #3808458
- light purple hair: post #6753756, post #6652055, post #2412870, post #1716982
Most of these posts (specifically, all of the dark green hair, all of the light green hair, and all but one of the light purple hair) feature characters with wikis that tag-link the hair color tag, making the tag show up under related tags.
I think all tag-links to hair and eye color on character wiki pages (including ones like multicolored hair, two-tone hair or gradient hair) should be converted to plain text or deleted. That, or the related tags feature should be modified to never suggest color tags for characters. We want taggers to tag the colors they see in the image they're posting, not what most taggers saw in other pictures of that character.
I'm concerned that the removal of light purple hair will just kick the ball down the round. I think it will lead to more posts being tagged white or gray than purple, thereby leading to white and gray becoming polluted with colors that aren't white or gray. There are also an order of magnitude more posts with LPH than the others.
BUR #20993 has been rejected.
deprecate light_brown_hair
Same reasoning as this thread in its entirety. Ton of blondes in there.
BUR #20994 has been rejected.
deprecate aqua_hair
Perhaps a bit more controversial and will likely end with me being shivved in a back alley with a leek, but aqua hair has all the same problems that the light/dark hairs have. When post #6865504, post #6864740, and post #6865351 are all aqua while Miku gets bludgeoned via Related/Wiki tags, it's honestly just as bad.
Separated from the previous BUR because of the extra probably controversy.
Veraducks said:
BUR #20994 has been rejected.
deprecate aqua_hair
Perhaps a bit more controversial and will likely end with me being shivved in a back alley with a leek, but aqua hair has all the same problems that the light/dark hairs have. When post #6865504, post #6864740, and post #6865351 are all aqua while Miku gets bludgeoned via Related/Wiki tags, it's honestly just as bad.
Separated from the previous BUR because of the extra probably controversy.
Maybe it could be salvageable if it was renamed to teal_hair or something, but I think it's too far gone and doesn't really fix the color subjectivity.
Veraducks said:
BUR #20994 has been rejected.
deprecate aqua_hair
Perhaps a bit more controversial and will likely end with me being shivved in a back alley with a leek, but aqua hair has all the same problems that the light/dark hairs have. When post #6865504, post #6864740, and post #6865351 are all aqua while Miku gets bludgeoned via Related/Wiki tags, it's honestly just as bad.
Separated from the previous BUR because of the extra probably controversy.
While there's definitely situations where a color is "definitely" aqua, I don't think these are worth the hassle over using blue/green where appropriate, since outside of these cases it's often extremely ambiguous and made even worse by lighting.
岩戸鈴芽 said:
While there's definitely situations where a color is "definitely" aqua, I don't think these are worth the hassle over using blue/green where appropriate, since outside of these cases it's often extremely ambiguous and made even worse by lighting.
That's just lazy talking, it's like saying "while some skirts are "definitely" overskirt, it's not worth hassle, so let's move them all to showgirl skirt". There're tons of "hassles" on the site, if everyone thinks like this, guess how many tags will be left. If you think it's not worth the hassle, fair, you won't ever be forced to do the gardening, but don't use it as an excuse to nuke a legitimate concept.
magcolo said:
That's just lazy talking, it's like saying "while some skirts are "definitely" overskirt, it's not worth hassle, so let's move them all to showgirl skirt". There're tons of "hassles" on the site, if everyone thinks like this, guess how many tags will be left. If you think it's not worth the hassle, fair, you won't ever be forced to do the gardening, but don't use it as an excuse to nuke a legitimate concept.
I don't see how your example describes a situation similar to the reasoning I gave. A type of skirt doesn't change depending on the lighting, the color calibration of the uploader's monitor or even how good their eyes can distinguish color.
Meanwhile, the wiki for aqua hair even mentions how many factors can change the appearance of the hair, leading to overlap with blue hair and green hair. Having a tag with inherent overlap with another, potentially incompatible tag doesn't sound ideal, and would lead to either constant gardening or continued misue.
feline_lump said:
I really don't have faith that people are going to comb through almost 100,000 posts of aqua hair and find a clean, objective way to split them between green hair and blue hair that won't inevitably result in even more mistags.
If it worked for silver hair, which used to have 287k posts, I don't see why it can't work for aqua hair.
Veraducks said:
BUR #20994 has been rejected.
deprecate aqua_hair
Perhaps a bit more controversial and will likely end with me being shivved in a back alley with a leek, but aqua hair has all the same problems that the light/dark hairs have. When post #6865504, post #6864740, and post #6865351 are all aqua while Miku gets bludgeoned via Related/Wiki tags, it's honestly just as bad.
Aren't these essentially all issues that purple hair also suffers from?
Mexiguy said:
Maybe it could be salvageable if it was renamed to teal_hair or something, but I think it's too far gone and doesn't really fix the color subjectivity.
The color between blue and green is Cyan/Aqua (both names for the same color) on the modern RGB color wheel (RGB 0, 255, 255). Renaming to teal will do nothing, but be an arbitrary name change based on personal preference.
