pool #1974 - Your Curtain ... to tag + implication

Posted under General

MyrMindservant said:
If you look at it's description you'll see that it's not just a collection of images with non-black/brown pubic hair.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it says in the description.

I think you somehow managed to miss part about not including artists and characters that are well known to draw/be portrayed with colored pubic hair.

And no, pubic_hair -unmatching_pubic_hair -black_hair -brown_hair -blonde_hair -toweringman -urushihara_satoshi (plus some other possible artists that are not mentioned in pool's description atm) is not an alternative.
First, this goes beyond search limit even for Privileged+ users.
Second, this would exclude from search results images like post #148262 or post #1175285 where one of the characters have traditional hair color while others not.

That's why the tag search is better. You don't have to artificially exclude images just because of the artist who drew them.

We should assume that a character has one hair color (for all body parts) by default and use pool #1974 if this isn't the case for at least one character. And why restrict it to black hair / include blonde hair? If blonde hair were included, you would have to include red hair as well, and grey/silver hair. forum #56476

Links to previous discussion in context:

jxh2154 said:
Heck, for that matter can any colors be considered unusual in anime/manga?

Really. The default assumption is that pubic hair matches head hair. Color isn't important, and can be approximated with blue_hair pubic_hair, etc... The exception, mismatched_pubic_hair, should be a tag. The colored pool should just be deleted.

Nials said:
Meh, why not just create colored_pubic_hair tag in conjunction to (color)_pubic_hair that'd fix all issues.

You didn't read the discussion, did you? (Or at least, misunderstood it.) The trouble is, exactly, "what counts as coloured hair?".

+1 to mismatched_pubic_hair (don't we already have that for eyebrows?), implicating to pubic_hair and deleting relevant pools.

Though will this mean we have to tag pubic hair colour too?

iridescent_slime said:

Necrobumping because I'd really like to see if we're still generally opposed to tags for individual pubic hair colors. There are at present a multitude of such tags (light blue pubic hair being the most recent creation). Should they be purged and replaced with the colored pubic hair and/or mismatched pubic hair as needed? Or have they reached a level of acceptance such that it's fine to start populating them in earnest?

I'm kind of "meh" about the whole thing. I'll probably never add those colored tags myself (mostly because I don't upload those), but I don't begrudge those that do. It is unique information that characterizes the picture after all.

If we're talking about the overabundance of hair colors, then I'll draw your attention to the very much contentious and still not settled topic #13860.

The colored_pubic_hair/mismatched_pubic_hair system covers the most important use cases, but I think it relies on an intuitive understanding of the relationship between pubic hair color and head hair color that no longer makes sense from the frame of reference of Danbooru's current "colorname_objectname" tagging culture. I can understand why taggers would expect pubic hair to follow the same naming conventions as other colored objects.

(If there does end up being consensus to tag individual colors, I can help; I've done it before)