The current set of color tags (blue, pink, etc.) seem to have mistagging, which may be due to the fact that people are typing out COLOR_WHATEVER and for whatever reason don't complete the tag. Instead, these tags should probably be given a qualifier such as COLOR_theme, which would reduce mistagging plus be a lot more clear.

We should also clarify how these tags should be used. As far as I see, there should be two scenarios with these color theme tags.

1. With the presence of the monochrome tag, the colors will be approximately the same hue (Ex: blue monochrome).

2. Without the presence of the monochrome tag, then a significant propensity of that color should be in that image (Ex: post #1383618).

I'd suggest a mass-update instead of an alias and make the old color tags ambiguous tags (List Of Disambiguation Pages).

Thoughts?

Edit:

• (2019-01-13)
• Changed title to reflect addition of BUR
• Changed category from General to Tags

There is already such a color tag with orange_(color).
Meaning the (color) is the qualifier.

I've just been through a few pages on some of these tags doing some tag gardening, and the level of misuse really isn't all that high - it was definitely in the low single digit percents for the tags I looked at. It's also very easy to spot and thus very easy to fix the mistakes. Of course, it's possible that someone had done that already for the stuff that I was looking at, but given the existance of some very obvious errors, they clearly weren't even trying if they had.

Given these tags often don't ever show up in the drop down menus, I'd have thought a change like this would likely just create more gardening - the things that are mistagged are clearly visible at present anyway, and will continue to be mistagged after the change, whilst I'd imagine a lot of people would continue to use the current tags at least for a while.

A lot of the errors you do get would also not be solved by this as they are things like post #2973490 (NSFW) where people blindly copy the tag from a pre-existing related image which does warrant the tag.

Plus it would also mean extra typing to add the tag if stuff is added on the end as, as previously mentioned, these tags aren't exactly prominent on the drop-downs if you type things like "red".

skylightcrystal said:

I've just been through a few pages on some of these tags doing some tag gardening, and the level of misuse really isn't all that high - it was definitely in the low single digit percents for the tags I looked at. It's also very easy to spot and thus very easy to fix the mistakes. Of course, it's possible that someone had done that already for the stuff that I was looking at, but given the existance of some very obvious errors, they clearly weren't even trying if they had.

I clean the color tags from time to time, but not particularly often.

I support BE’s suggestion.

The bulk update request #1932 is active.

mass update aqua -> aqua_theme
mass update black -> black_theme
mass update blue -> blue_theme
mass update brown -> brown_theme
mass update green -> green_theme
mass update grey -> grey_theme
mass update orange_(color) -> orange_theme
mass update pink -> pink_theme
mass update purple -> purple_theme
mass update red -> red_theme
mass update white -> white_theme
mass update yellow -> yellow_theme

Reason: Seems like there is a modicum of support, so I'm creating this BUR.

I'm keeping it with *_theme instead of *_(color), since with theme it is less ambiguous what the tag is for, and people generally shouldn't have to go to the wiki to figure out how a tag works.

EDIT: This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1932 (forum #153948) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

Should these be moved as well or are the color names too specific?

silver -> silver_theme
beige -> beige_theme
lavender -> lavender_theme

Isn't silver just a very shiny grey? Do we have a gold theme to go with that?

忍猫 said:

Should these be moved as well or are the color names too specific?

silver -> silver_theme
beige -> beige_theme
lavender -> lavender_theme

TBH I was just going by Tag Group:Colors. For myself, all of those could probably be filled by one of the other colors.

• silver -> grey
• beige -> brown,sepia
• lavender -> purple

tapnek said:

Isn't silver just a very shiny grey? Do we have a gold theme to go with that?

Doesn't look like it. Gold === coinage.

tapnek said:

Isn't silver just a very shiny grey? Do we have a gold theme to go with that?

There's gold_* and silver_* versions of clothing colors but I've never seen them used before.

忍猫 said:

Should these be moved as well or are the color names too specific?

silver -> silver_theme
beige -> beige_theme
lavender -> lavender_theme

Yeah, we really don't need lavender, they could all either be scrapped or filed under a similar colour.

BrokenEagle98 said:

TBH I was just going by Tag Group:Colors. For myself, all of those could probably be filled by one of the other colors.

• beige -> brown,sepia
  

Isn't sepia specifically for images stylized after old sepia-toned photographs? We shouldn't simply use it as an automatic replacement for beige.

iridescent_slime said:

Isn't sepia specifically for images stylized after old sepia-toned photographs? We shouldn't simply use it as an automatic replacement for beige.

Yeah, just like the colors I didn't include, I included that one just because it was in the list of others in Tag Group:Colors, although I wasn't very confident in its use. Since you pointed it out though, I believe that it should be removed. Additionally, that wiki should probably be updated so that other's don't mistake it for a color.

I think lavender is distinctive enough, and we have some extremely popular characters which will always keep the tag populated.
On the other hand, I've been lobbying to get rid of silver for years.
Silver is just grey or white. Sometimes in shiny versions. It's not a distinctive color it's just a different title for the same thing.

keonas said:

I think lavender is distinctive enough, and we have some extremely popular characters which will always keep the tag populated.
On the other hand, I've been lobbying to get rid of silver for years.
Silver is just grey or white. Sometimes in shiny versions. It's not a distinctive color it's just a different title for the same thing.

For me it's the other way around, I seriously can't see any difference between lavender and pink/purple and think they should just be aliased away. Silver on the other hand is different from grey in most areas, especially hair colours.

I'd kill lavender and silver both, but this is a discussion that's never gonna end up anywhere because everyone has different screen calibrations so we all see different tones for the same exact image.

We don't need silver. We don't need lavender. We don't need beige. These tags don't amount to more than a handful of posts and most of them aren't even tagged correctly.

"But I like color <X>!" I don't care, someone is always going to say that about any possible color. Grey / brown / purple are more than enough.

I'm not sure people are arguing about the existence of those colors as tag modifiers, or the existence of those colors as *_theme tags.

Regardless, since those tags already have an extremely low count, can we table the argument over those and just focus on those currently in the BUR.

As themes, no, keep it to primary/rainbow colors and some popular secondary colors.

I agree that a changed name will prevent mistags from mistyping a color_object tag, but we don't know that's where the mistags are coming from. Many could be cases where the tagger believes the tag applies because they have too low of a threshold for how much of one color needs to be in the image for it to be dominant. Also, as skylightcrystal said, these are really easy tags to garden; it can be done just by seeing which ones stick out from the sea of color.

Overall, I don't think the need for this request has been demonstrated enough to outweigh the ease and intuitiveness of being able to search the name of a color and see posts in that color. I think users are much more likely to search for colors than color_themes.

fossilnix said:

I agree that a changed name will prevent mistags from mistyping a color_object tag, but we don't know that's where the mistags are coming from. Many could be cases where the tagger believes the tag applies because they have too low of a threshold for how much of one color needs to be in the image for it to be dominant.

I often encounter those color tags when cleaning hair or eyes because the tagger meant to add something like blue_eyes or blue_hair. Seems like a pretty common mistake to me.