Aliasing coloured_text → text
Link to alias

Reason:

Alias colored_text → text already exists. coloured_text is merely a different spelling.

Similarly, other aliases exist that alias British to American spelling (colourful →colorful, coloured_nails → colored_nails) so this should be added as well.

EDIT: The tag alias coloured_text -> text (forum #229347) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

After many hours of back-breaking labour, I have finally finished cleared it out manually. Something tells me this isn't a big enough issue to need an alias.

BlueDingo said:
After many hours of back-breaking labour, I have finally finished cleared it out manually. Something tells me this isn't a big enough issue to need an alias.

considering "colour" is proper writing procedure and Britain and most British commonwealth countries and not just a spontaneous misspelling i do believe a alias is needed in this case even if rare.

I don't think it should be aliased, instead it could be useful when implied. Reason being: some monochromatic comics change some of their text to color when the comic page is colored (anniversary and milestone pages come to mind); it's meant to be an eye-catching detail against the usual black (or white) text. I'm only listing one, feel free to list more or argue otherwise.

Siral_Exan said:
I don't think it should be aliased, instead it could be useful when implied. Reason being: some monochromatic comics change some of their text to color when the comic page is colored (anniversary and milestone pages come to mind); it's meant to be an eye-catching detail against the usual black (or white) text. I'm only listing one, feel free to list more or argue otherwise.

rainbow_text

and (color)_text tags like orange_text or blue_text for example.
+ inclusion of a hightlighted_text tag for when only certain words or paragraphs/statements are colored

colored_text/coloured_text is a bit too ambiguous of being of real use. colorful_hair was aliased away for the same reasons.

Ruku said:
rainbow_text

and (color)_text tags like orange_text or blue_text for example.
+ inclusion of a hightlighted_text tag for when only certain words or paragraphs/statements are colored

colored_text/coloured_text is a bit too ambiguous of being of real use. colorful_hair was aliased away for the same reasons.

Rainbow requires all six colors of the rainbow to be present...

Except hair already has color, or the lack of hair, and adding more to it just makes it multicolored; text is usually devoid of any color (black, unless we are talking in paints), so that comparison isn't exactly sound. You'd want to compare something that normally doesn't have color, against why we shouldn't have a tag for when there's color in it.

Siral_Exan said:
Except hair already has color, or the lack of hair; text is usually devoid of any color (black, unless we are talking in paints), so that comparison isn't exactly sound. You'd want to compare something that normally doesn't have color, against why we shouldn't have a tag for when there's color in it.

Achromatic colors are still colors, so anything of those colors (text, hair, skin, etc.) are coloured in.

Ruku said:
and (color)_text tags like orange_text or blue_text for example.

I didn't know we tagged those.

Ruku said:
colored_text/coloured_text is a bit too ambiguous of being of real use. colorful_hair was aliased away for the same reasons.

Mind you, there is a difference between colored and colorful. Wouldn't colorful hair be multicolored hair?

BlueDingo said:
Achromatic colors are still colors, so anything of those colors (text, hair, skin, etc.) are coloured in.

Then black text should be be a perfectly valid tag for any and all (pretty much) posts. Yet we shouldn't because it is the default color of text, making it redundant, whereas colored text is not default and is uncommon in practice.

Siral_Exan said:
Then black text should be be a perfectly valid tag for any and all (pretty much) posts. Yet we shouldn't because it is the default color of text, making it redundant, whereas colored text is not default and is uncommon in practice.

So you basically want a tag that means "any color that isn't black". Being the default (which technically isn't true and only seems that way because the ink used to print text in books, newspapers, etc. is black by default and computers basically copied that) doesn't make it redundant, it makes it common. Common =/= redundant. If black_text was a tag and was tagged thoroughly and consistently, text -black_text would find non-black text.

BlueDingo said:
So you basically want a tag that means "any color that isn't black". Being the default (which technically isn't true and only seems that way because the ink used to print text in books, newspapers, etc. is black by default and computers basically copied that) doesn't make it redundant, it makes it common. Common =/= redundant. If black_text was a tag and was tagged thoroughly and consistently, text -black_text would find non-black text.

Should I have to explain why I call it redundant? And while wildcard searches make me feel like a pro, I am willing to say that for every case we could tag a colored text, there are a high divisible number that won't have black text as a tag, and countless missing because people don't add translation_request / translated.

It's easier to either alias to colored_text (I'm more for this, since *color*_text is a bit limiting and can have low tag counts) or make implications, than a literal 1m+ post sift (obviously manageable, I'll admit) for all cases with black_text.

Siral_Exan said:
Should I have to explain why I call it redundant? And while wildcard searches make me feel like a pro, I am willing to say that for every case we could tag a colored text, there are a high divisible number that won't have black text as a tag, and countless missing because people don't add text when they add translation_request.

It's easier to either alias to colored_text (I'm more for this, since *color*_text is a bit limiting and can have low tag counts) or make implications, than a literal 1m+ post sift (obviously manageable, I'll admit) for all cases with black_text.

It's more like a 300k+ post sift. You only have to go for the ones with "text" tagged, tags like translation_request imply text and images missing the text tag aren't too hard to find.

(color)_text would be no more restricting than (color)_(anything else).

What if you want an images containing black and non-black text together? If black is not tagged, you can't easily find that.

Semi-related: I'm surprised there's no multicolored_text tag.

BlueDingo said:
It's more like a 300k+ post sift. You only have to go for the ones with "text" tagged, tags like translation_request imply text and images missing the text tag aren't too hard to find.

(color)_text would be no more restricting than (color)_(anything else).

What if you want an images containing black and non-black text together? If black is not tagged, you can't easily find that.

Semi-related: I'm surprised there's no multicolored_text tag.

Except text only exists as one recognizable thing: text. Whereas hair takes on shapes, fur takes on patterns, skin is on multiple entities, etc., text is literally just text.

I'm including missing tags, which would be fixed for colored_text a bit faster than black_text.

Chances are there is black text with colored text or the colored text is not the bulk of the image, which isn't what you're looking for to begin with. Seriously, using colored text only is not in practice with the only exception is the text is sparse in quantity. I ask of you to bring me up a list of posts where dialogue is present and it only used colored text and not black text. If there is a substantial amount of posts that only have colored dialogue, you make your point.

Siral_Exan said:
Except text only exists as one recognizable thing: text. Whereas hair takes on shapes, fur takes on patterns, skin is on multiple entities, etc., text is literally just text.

dialogue, advertisement, speech_bubble , onomatopoeia , wanted_poster, most model_sheets, information, mostrunes, some symbols... just saying, it has multiple forms as well

Siral_Exan said:
Except text only exists as one recognizable thing: text. Whereas hair takes on shapes, fur takes on patterns, skin is on multiple entities, etc., text is literally just text.

Because text is never shaped...

BlueDingo said:
Because text is never shaped...

Yes, I can make out that M and P in SAMPLE anywhere! Or had it occurred to you that we don't tag font on this site either...

Text is the universal constant that makes up letters to words to sentences, and varies by every language, but as a whole it is only one thing: text. Anyone can recognize it because it exists as a constant form, and is not changed as a result, despite shaping the words or chopping up the sentences in half the wrong way. The only time it is not text is if there is no text.

The tag alias coloured_text -> text (forum #229347) has been approved by @bitWolfy.