Topic: [REJECTED] Monotone_ alias BUR

The bulk update request #4638 has been rejected.

Reason: These are a number of monotone_ tags that aren't particularly useful as they are exceedingly the norm (like white_sclera was, for instance)

monotone_pawpads will take some extra steps to alias since it has aliases itself, so I'll have to request unaliasing those first.

EDIT: The bulk update request #4638 (forum #363724) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

See also topic #33900.

The bulk update request #4639 has been rejected.

Reason: additional BUR entries

EDIT: The bulk update request #4639 (forum #363728) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

i'llkogyourmaw said:
Reason: These are a number of monotone_ tags that aren't particularly useful as they are exceedingly the norm (like white_sclera was, for instance)

I think there was a whole argument on topic #26928 in regards to the validity of monotone_* tags
I believe some of the more general monotone body parts should be kept rather than aliased away (like monotone_pussy or monotone_beak).
The more redundant ones (like monotone_gums) can probably be aliased to the more general monotone_* tags instead (like monotone_mouth).

The reason being while it may not be entirely useful for you or for everyday browsing, it may be really useful for users who want to be able to conduct deep searches (in the case of sourcing from image crops).

But, if people are looking for "less information = good for my eyes", then this BUR is fine as it is.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I believe some of the more general monotone body parts should be kept rather than aliased away (like monotone_pussy or monotone_beak).

The vast majority of beaks and pussies I see here are monotone, making them not very useful over a plain beak or pussy search (if not worse, since they're not tagged nearly as much as beak or pussy, making them unreliable). Is that different for others?

thegreatwolfgang said:
The more redundant ones (like monotone_gums) can probably be aliased to the more general monotone_* tags instead (like monotone_mouth).

The mouth is more than the gums, even ignoring the lips question. This would be the same issue as monotone_fur -> monotone_body; just because the fur/gums may be monotone doesn't mean the whole body/mouth necessarily is.

watsit said:
The vast majority of beaks and pussies I see here are monotone, making them not very useful over a plain beak or pussy search (if not worse, since they're not tagged nearly as much as beak or pussy, making them unreliable). Is that different for others?

Users are generally not required to tag that in-depth, but it is my intention to increase its use through exposure to said tags.
No new tags will ever be reliable until people start tagging them more and more, until it becomes widespread.

If the argument is that plain beak or pussy should already cover the "monotone" role, then a complete invalidation of monotone_* should be in order since most base tags already cover it (e.g., invalidate monotone_scales and just use scales instead).

The mouth is more than the gums, even ignoring the lips question. This would be the same issue as monotone_fur -> monotone_body; just because the fur/gums may be monotone doesn't mean the whole body/mouth necessarily is.

Actually, how is <color>_mouth actually tagged? It is my assumption that *_mouth refers to the insides of the mouth, rather the other parts since they all exist as separate tags.
Things such as lips, tongue, and teeth are all already tagged separately, so maybe mouth refers to the gums instead?

thegreatwolfgang said:
If the argument is that plain beak or pussy should already cover the "monotone" role, then a complete invalidation of monotone_* should be in order since most base tags already cover it (e.g., invalidate monotone_scales and just use scales instead).

In many cases it does, hence these aliases. If a thing x is monotone 99% of the time, a monotone_x tag won't help anyone find an image with a monotone x more than the x tag itself, causing it to just be a tag for tagging's sake. Something like scales or fur. however, are often not monotone, given the number creatures are countershaded, striped, spotted, and the like, so I can see them staying (however, they should have their implication to monotone_body removed, since a character having monotone fur doesn't mean their whole body is monotone if they're a mix of fur, scales, feathers, skin, etc).

There's also the issue of tagging something as monotone when you can only see part of it. Like if someone wanted to tag post #4029379 as monotone_legs; sure what you can see of the legs is monotone, but you see so little of them it seems disingenuous to say the legs are all a single color.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Actually, how is <color>_mouth actually tagged? It is my assumption that *_mouth refers to the insides of the mouth, rather the other parts since they all exist as separate tags.
Things such as lips, tongue, and teeth are all already tagged separately, so maybe mouth refers to the gums instead?

If *_mouth refers to the insides of the mouth, that would include teeth and the tongue. As mentioned, I think the mouth also includes the lips since doing something the lips is considered doing something with the mouth too, but even if we only count the inside of a mouth, it would rarely ever be monotone with visible teeth.

If we want mouth to just refer to gums, should we alias *_mouth tags to *_gums, to help avoid the misunderstanding?

watsit said:
In many cases it does, hence these aliases. If a thing x is monotone 99% of the time, a monotone_x tag won't help anyone find an image with a monotone x more than the x tag itself, causing it to just be a tag for tagging's sake. Something like scales or fur. however, are often not monotone, given the number creatures are countershaded, striped, spotted, and the like, so I can see them staying (however, they should have their implication to monotone_body removed, since a character having monotone fur doesn't mean their whole body is monotone if they're a mix of fur, scales, feathers, skin, etc).

Maybe, but that would mean selectively choosing which monotone_* tag should stay or go, based on whether they appeared to be monotone or not 99% of the time.
I can imagine the aliases creating two separate lists of what can and what cannot be monotone_*, and be a mess to differentiate.
I can understand that if it were common scenes, objects, or substances (like white_cum, red_blood, yellow_urine, or even blue_sky), but characters tend to be much more complex with their colours.

On another note, the issue with monotone_skin/fur/feathers/scales implying monotone_body is being addressed on topic #33859. However, people don't seem to be onboard with that idea.

There's also the issue of tagging something as monotone when you can only see part of it. Like if someone wanted to tag post #4029379 as monotone_legs; sure what you can see of the legs is monotone, but you see so little of them it seems disingenuous to say the legs are all a single color.

I feel that would still apply. Like seeing the naked bust_portrait of a character, and then tagging monotone_body.

If *_mouth refers to the insides of the mouth, that would include teeth and the tongue. As mentioned, I think the mouth also includes the lips since doing something the lips is considered doing something with the mouth too, but even if we only count the inside of a mouth, it would rarely ever be monotone with visible teeth.

If we want mouth to just refer to gums, should we alias *_mouth tags to *_gums, to help avoid the misunderstanding?

I'm not sure about that since there isn't an official wiki definition for mouth, so that would really be up to interpretation.

I am for the alias of *_mouth to *_gum, but it would really depend on how people are using the tag in general.
I was also thinking about invalidation, which would leave *_gum as the remainder tag.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Maybe, but that would mean selectively choosing which monotone_* tag should stay or go, based on whether they appeared to be monotone or not 99% of the time.

It's not that unusual. Tags do get aliased away for indicating an object is in its most common state; white_sclera (based on whether sclera appear white enough of the time), open_eyes (based on whether eyes appear open enough of the time), two_arms (based on whether arms appear in twos enough of the time), two_legs (same for legs), etc. These things are like this enough of the time that it's not worth tagging, and should instead tag when it's not like that.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I can understand that if it were common scenes, objects, or substances (like white_cum, red_blood, yellow_urine, or even blue_sky), but characters tend to be much more complex with their colours.

To a degree, sure. I'd agree with the body as a whole tending to be somewhat complex, but certain specific parts of a character still tend to be monotone despite that, like eyebrows, fingernails, teeth, etc. If monotone_eyebrows, when ideally used, gives the practically the same results as eyebrows (and when not ideally used, just a random subset of eyebrows posts), there's really no point in the former. It's more effective to search for when they aren't monotone.

thegreatwolfgang said:
On another note, the issue with monotone_skin/fur/feathers/scales implying monotone_body is being addressed on topic #33859. However, people don't seem to be onboard with that idea.

As for me, I'd be on board with deimplicating monotone_skin/etc and two_tone_skin/etc from monotone_body and two_tone_body, but all the rest with multicolored_*, rainbow_*, and the individual colors should stay (and disambiguating/invaliding light_* and dark_* since they're often vague, relative, and subjective, depending on the surrounding scene more than the things so tagged ).

thegreatwolfgang said:
I feel that would still apply. Like seeing the naked bust_portrait of a character, and then tagging monotone_body.

I think you should need to see a good amount of it to be able to declare it's monotone. Like seeing a bust_portrait and tagging fully_clothed or nude based only on the limited view of them having shirt on or not. Or tagging barefoot because a character is bottomless with their feet out of view. Or tagging yellow_feet while a character is wearing boots because all the visible parts of their body are all yellow.

+1, these are all defaults. We'd still have two_tone_nipples etc. for the unusual ones that actually aren't the default.

The bulk update request #4639 (forum #363728) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #4638 (forum #363724) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.