Implicating pink_border → border
Link to implication

Reason:

A pink border is a border that is pink.

Related border implications

• blue_border → border
• brown_border → border
• green_border → border
• grey_border → border
• orange_border → border
• ornate_border → border
• purple_border → border
• transparent_border → border
• transparent_border → alpha_channel

Related border aliases

• alpha_border → transparent_border

+1. Related: forum #200448

-1

Naming the color of every border is obnoxious...what possible use could that have?

Dyrone said:
-1

Naming the color of every border is obnoxious...what possible use could that have?

like many other "useless" tags, it can be extremely helpful for searching specific content (like you want to find again some post and you remember that it has red border and anthro dog)

Dyrone said:
-1

Naming the color of every border is obnoxious...what possible use could that have?

Once upon a time, someone decided that tags like blue_fur and white_fur were useless and aliased them away to the color name. There were no words for markings. There was no blue_background or blue themes.

The idea of using blue_fur was dismissed as "Needless complexity. Since virtually every picture here centres around characters, there's no reason to assume a colour indicates anything but main body colour. What else would you use it for?"

While the current way that body covering colors and markings are used may be a bit over complex (this is what happens when a system is allowed to be built by the many, over many years...) I think we can all safely say that being able to search for blue_fur and white_markings and whatnot is a good thing, especially when you're looking for that ONE picture...

my point generally is... having tags doesn't hurt anything.

border has had a wikipage since 2015 and has 11,211 posts. This isn't exactly a new thing.

Right now, Black_border, white_border outside_border and red_border all imply border. I think that these are terribly incomplete and ... well, should be finished. :P

SnowWolf said:
my point generally is... having tags doesn't hurt anything.

If a tag is completely useless it does. I mean what good is remembering that a certain piece had a green border if no one tagged it? If a tag is severely unpopular, and no one tags it because they have enough shit to tag without getting into border color then it loses what little use it would have.

And using this logic where does it end? Do we need a thick_border and thin_border tags? what about a double_border or rounded_border...it's entirely possible to become too pedantic with tagging.

SnowWolf said:
border has had a wikipage since 2015 and has 11,211 posts. This isn't exactly a new thing.

I'm not talking about getting rid of the border tag...nice strawman...I'm saying these border color tags don't need to be a thing. I've searched through every single one...all but two of them are under 100 tags...many are under 50 tags. Only blue_border and pink_border actually have over 100 tags with ~120 each. These are not popular tags.

If anything all "insert-x-color_border" tags should be aliased to color_border...then there would be 5 border tags...black, white, grey, transparent, and color. Much more manageable and less clutter...also more easily accounts for multi-colored borders...for instance what if there is a rainbow border? What would happen with this current system? Tag all the colors? Create a rainbow_border tag? what if it wasn't a true rainbow and had maybe 4 colors? These are problems we could avoid.

SnowWolf said:
Right now, Black_border, white_border outside_border and red_border all imply border. I think that these are terribly incomplete and ... well, should be finished. :P

That's what I hate about a lot of the tagging philosophy around here. It's not about creating something that is useful, it's too often just about "completing the set" for its own sake. As in "well if this tag exists, then naturally this other tag must exist as well, never mind that no one will use it, we're building a set here people!"

Ran into this lately in another thread about digital_media_(artwork)...everyone seems to agree it's useless, and yet it's still here...my hypothesis on this is because it serves as a compliment to traditional_media_(artwork)...again one useful tag inferring a useless tag and thus we are stuck with a useless tag.

Dyrone said:
If a tag is completely useless it does. I mean what good is remembering that a certain piece had a green border if no one tagged it? If a tag is severely unpopular, and no one tags it because they have enough shit to tag without getting into border color then it loses what little use it would have.

I'm not talking about getting rid of the border tag...nice strawman...I'm saying these border color tags don't need to be a thing. I've searched through every single one...all but two of them are under 100 tags...many are under 50 tags. Only blue_border and pink_border actually have over 100 tags with ~120 each. These are not popular tags.

Every single tag on the website started from zero.

Just because people are not tagging a tag does not make it worthless. o_o By that arguement, we have people who forget to tag things like sex and penis-- but we all agree that those tags are useful. I know there are several people who have a 'pet tag' that they keep up with.

I understand that you're not talking about getting rid of border, but bear with me please.

There are over 11,000 posts tagged with border, which seems about right to me. Most pictures don't HAVE a border.

For some reference: there are 11,000 intersex/female posts, 11,000 slit_pupils tagged. 11,000 pictures with 5_toes, with moons, and with otters or skunks. There are 11,000 chairs and tank_tops.

No tag is 100% perfectly tagged. but Border is being tagged on a regular basis by several people. Skimming through tag history, about 5 people have tagged in the last few days.

the *colored* border tags are getting a bit less use, yes. That is true. but a tag getting little use is not a reason to get rid of it.

most images are going to have a white border, a black border, or a transparent one. This is due to the fact that those are common colors to use in design.

Look at *_background... In order of prevalence: White, gray, transparent, blue, purple, pink then black.

This is because a blue_background can be a subtle and non distracting part of the image. It can CONTRIBUTE to the image by giving the vague impression of "out doors", somberness, cheerfulness, or other "mood". a blue background can compliment a character, or help make the character stand out more. Blue is a very common color to use for this reason.

Borders are harder to do right. a border is more about framing an image. Literally, like a picture frame. You CAN use it artistically, perhaps in making the character overlap the border, but most of the time, the simple point of a border is to frame the image. It's not part of the image. It's a frame. most of the time, you're gonna pick black, white, or transparent. (this is not meant to be an arguement for my opinion, just... making words about the coloration of borders and the tagging thereof)

If I search border -white_border -black_border I get a few images that are missing the proper border tags... but mostly? I am seeing colored borders. Or other borders that don't quite fit into one of the other categories.

with 11,000 border posts, having ways to narrow it down further (not a white_border, not a black border...) helps a lot.

And using this logic where does it end? Do we need a thick_border and thin_border tags? what about a double_border or rounded_border...it's entirely possible to become too pedantic with tagging.

I agree entirely.
Thankfully, the only "border" tags we have are colors, outside_border (for when a character overlaps the borders on their image, as if breaking the 4th wall), transparent_border, and "ornate" border.

There are 1 or two *_border tags that could be deleted and retagged (Mauve_border, for example) and a few that need clarification (transparent_border, for example, could refer to alpha_channel, OR a transparent layer of color around an image.) but by and large? this tag group is not wild and out of control. No one is trying to go crazy and tag every possible flavor of tag imaginable.

Ahem. Slippery slope? :p

If anything all "insert-x-color_border" tags should be aliased to color_border...then there would be 5 border tags...black, white, grey, transparent, and color. Much more manageable and less clutter...also more easily accounts for multi-colored borders...for instance what if there is a rainbow border? What would happen with this current system? Tag all the colors? Create a rainbow_border tag? what if it wasn't a true rainbow and had maybe 4 colors? These are problems we could avoid.

If you have gray_border, people will try to tag blue_border. People will try to make use of what they assume is a valid tag, even if you didn't plan for that tag in your initial design. Speaking from experience :P

So if you've got people trying to tag blue_border, then why not have blue_border IMPLY colored_border (or color_border), and you can have your cake and eat it too.

Much as some posts only have 'border' right now because their border does not fit into any other preexisting category, your rainbow_border would simply be a colored_border. Or maybe a gradient_border. or maybe if it becomes a common thing (The internet is a strange memeish place), rainbow_border. But probably not.

That's what I hate about a lot of the tagging philosophy around here. It's not about creating something that is useful, it's too often just about "completing the set" for its own sake. As in "well if this tag exists, then naturally this other tag must exist as well, never mind that no one will use it, we're building a set here people!"

Can I just... Mmmh. Okay. Like I said. If white_border and black_border exists, people are GOING to try to tag blue_border and blue_border when they appear. This is proven by the fact that those tags already exist and are populated by a number of tags.

Being a *minority* does not mean that they should be removed entirely. Being a minority does not mean that we should only cater to the majority. The reason why try to have "complete sets" of tags is for ease. If someone comes along as says "no, it's a MAUVE border" we can say that we have no other MAUVE tags, we should use (*pauses* that is a hell of a color. I'm going to say 'purple' though depending on the swatch, it could be pink, red or reddish brown even. But.. .for simplicity..) purple_border instead.

e621 has a number of established colors. It is easiest to say that, even though it is unlikely that someone will use a certain color for something, that if someone DOES that is the color that is used.

Having blue_border does not hurt anything. It is not pulling away from other tags. It's not obscure. it's obvious what the tag is for and used with. No one needs to look it up. it's just a border that is blue. Blue_border is honestly what I wish every tag name could be: Straightforward. No Guessing. Once you understand what we define "blue" as, and what a "border" is, it's done.

Compared to the thousands of useful tags we have with finicky names where we might get confused about the different between hand_on_penis, penis_grab, holding_penis.... and grabbing_penis, penis_hold, penis_in_hand etc. Blue_border is simple. It doesn't "cost" anything to maintain it, whereas, the dick-touching tags require a lot of upkeep to make sure that no grabs are holds and no holds are grabs, etc. Blue_border's easy.

Having a complete set here doesn't *hurt.* So, while blue_border may not get a lot of use, letting it exist *helps* users so that they don't get frustrated when black_border implies border, yet blue_border does not.

(for example... pink_border has 125 posts. pink_border -border has 83 posts. blue_border has 120 posts, blue_border -border has 35 posts.)

Which is where this thread comes in.. :)

Ran into this lately in another thread about digital_media_(artwork)...everyone seems to agree it's useless, and yet it's still here...my hypothesis on this is because it serves as a compliment to traditional_media_(artwork)...again one useful tag inferring a useless tag and thus we are stuck with a useless tag.

I stayed out of that one because I have mixed opinions. the tag can be helpful when you're trying to tag other types of images by removing it from a search, or blacklisting it, ( searches like -digital_media_(artwork) can help you find untagged traditional_media...) however, in the end, all of the artwork tags are somewhat under tagged, mostly on account of the fact that it CAN be hard to determine if something was done with markers of watercolors, or colored pencils or paint. a lot of the time artists will mix media together, and the only way we can really tell is via the artist's comments. it's messy, and I don't know how I feel over there. When the site was started, digital paintings were less common. Once upon a time, a lot of furry art was trad media. The tag is less helpful than it used to be. Yet, there are still 268,000 posts tagged with digital media. what do we do? just delete the tag? what about all the traditional media tags? what about the things that imply digital media? Pixels, and 3D and oekaki., and whatnot. should they still be tagged? should they have a 'parent tag? I dunno.

It's why I'm staying out of it.

But having a tag around generally doesn't HURT anyway.

..everyone seems to agree it's useless, and yet it's still here...my hypothesis on this is because it serves as a compliment to traditional_media_(artwork)...again one useful tag inferring a useless tag and thus we are stuck with a useless tag

well, here's the thing. For one... it's not hurting anything. There are literally 10's of thousands of tags that are used on one post, when something else would be more correct. .. I'd rather see those get cleaned up, y'know? those are the tags that are being misleading.

For two.... and this is a long learned lesson. Making decisions is not something you should do quickly. i dunno how many times we've aliased or implied something only to realize we dun goofed. So many threads are started where they say "X should imply Y... because you can't have X without Y!" then someone comes along and says exactly why you can, in fact, have x without Y.

Plus, it's not just... like... a quick thing. aliases and implications take time and server-power to perform. --I haven't made aliases/implications in a long time, but I know that anything over a certain size, we specifically tried to do during hours of low activity, because it could take HOURS.

and if you fuck up and alias or imply the wrong thing... it takes at least as long to undo. (depending on how it's done. I've fucked things up before that took .... well, a lot of manual untagging.)

and the worst thing is when you mess something up that you don't realize for days or weeks. or years.

SnowWolf said:
snip

I'm actually not going to read this...that is too much text. I want to discuss the topic, but I don't want reading homework.

Dyrone said:
I'm actually not going to read this...that is too much text. I want to discuss the topic, but I don't want reading homework.

discussions and debates are "reading homework"
in most cases , if you were truly interested in a discussion then you would respond to their rebuttal to your complaints/assertions in kind instead of coping out and complaining about too much text...
Their responses certainly are reasonble.

Also regarding the examples you gave for being too specific like rounded_border or double_border, I don't consider those to be excessively specific, keep in mind we do have tags for the particular styles of shading application or particular type of female underwear that most casual users won't even care to now.

And as I have noted on the forum regarding the digital media tag, if the tag exists then it is useful to someone and if it's not breaking any rules and it doesn't already exist in its usage as another tag(duplicates,mispellings...) then I see no reason to remove or deny it's continued existance. These tags certainly arnt hurting anyone's ability to search, in fact the oposite, they help search ability which goes torwards your arguement on being useful.
What you find may pointless, others may find useful.

Darou said:
in most cases , if you were truly interested in a discussion then you would respond to their rebuttal to your complaints/assertions in kind instead of coping out and complaining about too much text...
Their responses certainly are reasonble.

I feel that if I did that then I'm enabling their bad behavior.

Darou said:
Also regarding the examples you gave for being too specific like rounded_border or double_border, I don't consider those to be excessively specific, keep in mind we do have tags for the particular styles of shading

I just don't consider borders to be all that important. Shading is more important because it can effect the entire look of a piece. A border as an artistic choice that has a fairly low impact, and I would argue that most of the time you can (and people often do) crop out the border with almost no impact on the piece.

Darou said:
And as I have noted on the forum regarding the digital media tag, if the tag exists then it is useful to someone and if it's not breaking any rules and it doesn't already exist in its usage as another tag(duplicates,mispellings...) then I see no reason to remove or deny it's continued existence.

That is a ridiculously permissive stance on tags...if we treated all tags like that then there would be no reason for many invalid tags like head because it's useful to someone! *rolls eyes* Truth is some tags are either a. too general (like head) or b. too specific (like red_and_purple_double_border_with_cheese) to be useful. That's like...Tagging 101...did you miss the first day of class?

Stick to the topic instead of killing each other.

Dyrone said:
I feel that if I did that then I'm enabling their bad behavior.

bad bahavior:?

I just don't consider borders to be all that important. Shading is more important because it can effect the entire look of a piece. A border as an artistic choice that has a fairly low impact, and I would argue that most of the time you can (and people often do) crop out the border with almost no impact on the piece.

And I state that I do very much consider borders to be important, like I said what is worthless to one person is valuable to another. As far as people cropping borders are you certain that isnt because of the want of removing signatures. Might I also remind that borders are a fixture in comic/Manga pages, these kinds of artwork may very well have colorful borders rather then the standard black or white and as such are another angle at searching for something specific. It should be noted that depending on the color of to border it does have the effect of giving a confined or open feeling to the viewer, there is a reason most artists at artshows/convention have their work matted or framed rather then "naked" you'd also find this often with digital prints most art galleries including furaffinity do include some form of border by default, e621 doesn't have one applied on submission pages, thru that does make sence since e621 is made to just hold content not actual presentation...

That is a ridiculously permissive stance on tags...if we treated all tags like that then there would be no reason for many invalid tags like head because it's useful to someone! *rolls eyes* Truth is some tags are either a. too general (like head) or b. too specific (like red_and_purple_double_border_with_cheese) to be useful. That's like...Tagging 101...did you miss the first day of class?

"...if it's not breaking the rule..." I do believe generic tags are specified as against the rules and advised against in e621's help pages that address tagging. And your example would count as a duplicate or mispellings as purple_border, red_border and double_border are reasonble tags and adress this, and then there is cheese as a tag. Some tags can be more specific the others on the other hand but pink_border by no means is too specific.

Darou said:
And I state that I do very much consider borders to be important

I love how you said "borders" and not "border colors"...it's literally something so inane and meaningless you're forgetting to specify them even as you are trying to defend them!

How can I put this? It does not matter what you find to be important...because it doesn't matter what an individual finds to be important! Tags are a system to enable users to find content...they don't exist for their own sake or for the sake of a single person. So because ONE user finds it useful doesn't mean it's a good tag even if it's not breaking any other rules. Now you could easily turn this argument around on me and say my opinion doesn't matter either, so that's why we go to the numbers...the border tag has 11,000+...so obviously that seems to be pretty popular...denoting the color of the border? Much MUCH less so. Like I said...the majority being under 100 tags. That's the indicators we should be using. Are all small tags bad? No, but I think if something so elemental as a border color was actually being used and searched by people each of those tags would be A LOT bigger than they currently are...there are undoubtedly hundreds if colored border images that have not been tagged as such because people DO NOT CARE about these tags.

Darou said:
there is a reason most artists at artshows/convention have their work matted or framed rather then "naked"

I think of borders as kind of a cop-out bullshit background. Artists do that at shows because they are usually making quick sketches for people and that's one of the quickest ways to establish some sort of background. The COLOR is even less important. I took a college-level art class and we were taught that there are 7 elements of art: Line, Shape, Form, Value, Space, Texture, and Color...and out of all of these Color is the least important.

Darou said:
red_border and double_border are reasonble tags and adress this, and then there is cheese as a tag

I knew you'd get hung up on that cheese bit and completely miss the point...lets make it easier for you...what if there was an image with a pink and black gradient double border...and I decide to tag that as pink_and_black_gradient_double_border...by your own rule set that you have established that tag would be perfectly acceptable, and yet it's pretty clear it's so hyper-specific that it will likely NEVER be useful outside of that single image. So I think we can establish that a tag can go too far without breaking any of your little rules, now we're just arguing where that line actually lies.