Aliasing beige_scales → tan_scales
Link to alias

Reason:

related forum #204403

EDIT: The tag alias beige_scales -> tan_scales (forum #204578) has been approved by @Millcore.

Also, cream_scales, which is another tag for scales that are off-white.

But I'm not really sure if throwing all of them under tan_scales is the greatest idea, since that one includes tints that are close to being outright brown. Is such a relatively broad tag a good idea? We haven't done the same with cream_fur either.

I would personally alias beige to tan and use that tag for colors that are closer to brown than white (yet not distinctly yellow either), reserve cream for true off-white that's definitely not brownish (like, up until 'vanilla') and switch a bunch of the current tags around.

Like so:

post #705724 post #906326 <-- Cream

post #835026 post #432784 <-- Tan

Or is this too complicated and possibly prone to arbitrary decision-making when something's somewhere in-between these pretty clear cut extremes? I mean, I can already see this one causing problems for example:

post #637314

Jugofthat said:
Also, cream_scales, which is another tag for scales that are off-white.

But I'm not really sure if throwing all of them under tan_scales is the greatest idea, since that one includes tints that are close to being outright brown. Is such a relatively broad tag a good idea? We haven't done the same with cream_fur either.

cream fur is aliased to tan fur so.

As stated in the other forum this is about consistency and the problem with most taggers not being able to tell the difference between the pale brown colors of tan, beige and cream and as such use them interchangibly so its better to collect them all under a single more known name often used for textures that have colors of light human skin. Most taggers will be able to tell the difference between pale browns and standard brown. not so much minuscule tones within pale_browns

Ruku said:
cream fur is aliased to tan fur so.

Wow, you're right. That must've happened recently I think. :O
Or I've just not been paying attention very well.

As stated in the other forum this is about consistency and the problem with most taggers not being able to tell the difference between the pale brown colors of tan, beige and cream and as such use them interchangibly so its better to collect them all under a single more known name often used for human skin. Most taggers will be able to tell the difference between pale browns and standard brown. not so much minuscule tones within pale_browns

Yep, good point, which I actually touched upon in the last line of my edited post. It's what I too fear will happen when the lines aren't drawn very clearly, use too many variables and people will start to (unintentionally) mistag, leading to senseless fragmentation of posts.

And again, some shades of 'between white and brown' are just... something that you could call either cream or tan and you technically wouldn't be wrong, as it just kinda bleeds together. Large grey area. Red and orange tend to have that problem too.

Well, alias the whole bunch to tan_scales then, I suppose. It's not what I'd really like to see but it will definitely be a lot easier to manage.

Jugofthat said:
Like so:

post #705724 post #906326 <-- Cream

post #835026 post #432784 <-- Tan

Or is this too complicated and possibly prone to arbitrary decision-making when something's somewhere in-between these pretty clear cut extremes?

That's not clear-cut.
Posts like those are likely to be tagged as either yellow_* or orange_*. And http://www.color-blindness.com/color-name-hue/ supports that: first two have yellow base hue (Bowser is borderline white), and the other two have orange hue. Whereas tan should have brown base hue.

That's an another demonstration of how subjective those are. Alias both to invalid_color, I'd say.

I actually get what you mean about those examples of tan, but surely you can't expect anyone to interpret Derrick's main color and Bowser's countershading as yellow. I'd say that analyser only gives those posts yellow as a base hue because white isn't a color, so it doesn't even consider it as an option.

Or well, it's not like that's completely wrong, technically cream or vanilla are very, very light shades of yellow, but that doesn't mean they're not _perceived_ as off-white by the average person. As in, very close to white but not quite. Which is something very much different from what you'd expect of a post tagged with yellow_scales or yellow_fur. How's that helpful to users?

Invalidating them all would go too far, in my opinion.

_{I really need to finalize my post for once before dumping it online :\}

Jugofthat said:
I actually get what you mean about those examples of tan, but surely you can't expect anyone to interpret Derrick's main color and Bowser's countershading as yellow. I'd say that analyser only gives those posts yellow as a base hue because white isn't a color, so it doesn't even consider it as an option.

They get consistently tagged as yellow_* because hardly anyone remembers that cream_* or tan_* exist. Can't blame them for forgetting, since we mainly use common colors. Which is why those are mostly aliased away.

As for why ones such as that Bowser sometimes get tagged as white_*...? I presume it's because the body and belly colors are so different in those that the taggers feel that they should be tagged as different colors.

Bumping and +1 for this alias. Both tags are used to describe the same thing, and all of the other beige_* tags have already been aliased to their tan_* equivalent.

+1, and suggesting aliasing:

• beige_claws -> tan_claws
• beige_clitoris -> tan_clitoris
• beige_haori -> tan_haori
• beige_jacket -> tan_jacket
• beige_lips -> tan_lips
• beige_mane -> tan_mane
• beige_pubes -> tan_pubes
• beige_shirt -> tan_shirt
• beige_sweater -> tan_sweater
• beige_vest -> tan_vest

The tag alias beige_scales -> tan_scales (forum #204578) has been approved by @Millcore.