I have a question that might benefit those of us that tag posts regarding fur colors: When tagging a character's fur color, should you tag the character's primary or dominant fur color only, or should you tag any and all fur colors that appear on a character's fur pattern? I've checked a few of the wiki's for the fur colors and it seems that either approach is acceptable, but should we choose one way over the other? Open for discussion, as always.

I'd say it depends, add all "important" fur colors to the tags, but skip details like a single red dot or a small green streak or something.

For example:

post #339006
I'd tag this with brown, white and black fur.
If she had a red dot in the middle of her face I wouldn't add red_fur.

I tend to tag any and all fur colors that appear on characters in an image, even in markings. Unless it's, like...literally a small centimeter thing that's barely visible.

We could probably also use a tag like multi-colored_hair but for fur.

I made a similar thing about that in forum #69485, and the people who responded seemed to think it would complicate things more than they are

I like the idea of creating a tag that represents a character who has more than one fur color and another for just one fur color. I also think tagging every noticeable fur color is important. To copy off of Rocket Corgi and NotMeNotYou, multi-colored_fur or multi-colored_body and solid-colored_fur or solid-covered_body sound like good tags. When a user tags, they can use either multi- or solid- and then include any of the fur color tags.

What about fur colored fur?

NotMeNotYou said:
post #339006
I'd tag this with brown, white and black fur.

Thanks for demonstrating the main problem with these tags.
The base hues of that image are brown, orange and yellow. There's no black.

On related topic, look at these 'white_dragons':
post #188249
post #294750

The color tags are all over the place.

Genjar said:
...
On related topic, look at these 'white_dragons'...

The number of tags that are *_dragon is making me want to punch something.

(color)_dragon should not be a tag.
We don't tag brown_dog or blue_rabbit, why would we tag black_dragon.

Halite said:
The number of tags that are *_dragon is making me want to punch something.

(color)_dragon should not be a tag.
We don't tag brown_dog or blue_rabbit, why would we tag black_dragon.

Should be replaced for either white_scales or white_body :P.

Butterscotch said:
Should be replaced for either white_scales or white_body :P.

Yes, infinitely yes.
It seems that a large percentage of the tagging of (color)_dragon is by one user too (not all just most).
https://e621.net/user/show/90603

Genjar said:
Thanks for demonstrating the main problem with these tags.
The base hues of that image are brown, orange and yellow. There's no black.

So they are, it is really interesting to see colors shift between screens, on my phone screen, that is no dark brown, it is black, on my desktop I can clearly see that this is a dark brown, but no black.

Halite said:
(color)_dragon should not be a tag.
We don't tag brown_dog or blue_rabbit, why would we tag black_dragon.

Agreed.
I think those started as species tags for the chromatic dragons from Dungeons and Dragons (like brass_dragon etc), but now they're just added to all dragons. Mostly by that one user.

Ok. Unless there is any disagreement, disapproval, or outright distress, I think I'll make this my new tagging project. Is there any preference of which to use, either *_fur or *_body?

Furry_Fanatic said:
Ok. Unless there is any disagreement, disapproval, or outright distress, I think I'll make this my new tagging project. Is there any preference of which to use, either *_fur or *_body?

If it's furry, use *_fur.
If it has obvious scales, use *_scales.
Otherwise, *_body.

That's how I'd do it.