EDIT: Tag BURs on topic #33859.

----

I want to propose a change on how we tag colours on fur, scales, & feathers (not sure about skin or exoskeleton for now).

As it currently stands, we tag <color>_fur/scales/feathers when we see their colour & textures on character's bodies. If the body's texture is left ambiguous/uncertain, we would then tag <color>_body instead.
Thus, our tag implications are built around implying <color>_fur/scale/feathers to <color>_body; e.g., black_fur/black_feathers/black_scales imply black_body.

We have been using this format for years now, but it has never been updated to suit with today's tagging with the ever increasing complexities and new subtags.

• Fur has expanded to include tags like fur_tuft and its many subtags (e.g., arm_tuft, cheek_tuft, tail_tuft, etc.).
• Scales have expanded to include tags like facial_scales/scale_eyebrows, scale_hair, scaled_forearms, etc.
• Feathers have expanded to include tags like feather_hair, feather_hands, feather_mane, feather_tuft, feathered_wings, etc.

As per TWYS, I have always tagged <color>_fur/scales/feathers for the subtags as well. However, an issue is created due to to the automatic implication of <color>_body.
For example: If I see a character with white_body and a pair of black feathered_wings, I would tag black_wings + black_feathers; however, it will also imply black_body (due to the implication with black_feathers) which would make it erroneous.
Another example: If I see a character with black_body and white_fur tail_tufts, I would tag fur_tuft + white_fur + white_tuft; however, it will also imply white_body (due to the implication with white_fur) which would make it erroneous as well.

I wonder how others tag <color>_fur/scales/feathers in the context of the various subtags. Am I tagging it wrongly, or have others encountered this problem as well?

thegreatwolfgang said:
As per TWYS, I have always tagged <color>_fur/scales/feathers for the subtags as well. However, an issue is created due to to the automatic implication of <color>_body.
For example: If I see a character with white_body and a pair of black feathered_wings, I would tag black_wings + black_feathers; however, it will also imply black_body (due to the implication with black_feathers) which would make it erroneous.

Or what if the feathers aren't attached to a body? An example might be a feathered headdress. It's got colored feathers, but they aren't attached to a body. Or how about a wig? Sure you can't tell if the character is wearing it, but if they're just holding it, it would be colored hair but not on a body. The logic can also be used for pelts or shed scales.

clawstripe said:
Or what if the feathers aren't attached to a body?

There are the <color>_feather tags for feathers not part of a character's body. Definitely not an elegant way to separate the two uses, but it does work.

I do see the issue here, though. There are cases where fur/scales/etc may not be part of a character's body (a fur cape, decorative scales) but tagging red_fur for a red fur rug or cape or something for example, would cause red_body to be tagged. Or like post #2746601 where there's a strip of white fur running down their back, causing the post to get tagged with white_body when their body isn't white.

But at the same time, I'm not sure how to best fix the issue. As we deal with animal characters here, a character's body is most often made of fur or scales, so if tagging a character with <color>_fur or <color>_scales doesn't imply <color>_body, the latter will be woefully undertagged.

clawstripe said:
Or what if the feathers aren't attached to a body? An example might be a feathered headdress. It's got colored feathers, but they aren't attached to a body. Or how about a wig? Sure you can't tell if the character is wearing it, but if they're just holding it, it would be colored hair but not on a body. The logic can also be used for pelts or shed scales.

That's the weird thing. I did consider something like feather_in_hat to be eligible for the <color>_feathers tag, but decided not to bring it up due to the potential argument of whether clothing can be tagged with fur or feathers.
What I want to bring up is something more related to the character, such as their (feathered) wings or (fur) tufts, which would get tagged with <color>_body should someone tag <color>_feathers/fur for them.

watsit said:
But at the same time, I'm not sure how to best fix the issue. As we deal with animal characters here, a character's body is most often made of fur or scales, so if tagging a character with <color>_fur or <color>_scales doesn't imply <color>_body, the latter will be woefully undertagged.

That's also another weird thing. IIRC we were encouraged to avoid <color>_body unless we cannot make out whether or not the character is covered in skin, fur, feathers, etc.
To quote from the black_body wiki, "If you can not tell what type of body the character has, simply putting black_body is the answer."

Though I personally do tag <color>_body separately with every single body part, such as <color>_arms, <color>_legs, etc., and only tagging <color>_fur/scales/feathers if they were a feature on their body.

As for a potential fix, I want to suggest to unimply all of them from <color>_body, though I have only found justification for fur, scales, and feathers.
Not so much for skin or exoskeleton though, but I can imagine someone tagging <color>_skin for the colour of a character's arms, legs, face, etc. and it would then automatically imply <color>_body. Generally though, <color>_skin would almost always be associated with a character's body skin colour.

There's also an entire new can of worms with monotone/two_tone/multicolored_fur/scales/feathers since they too are implied with monotone_body/two_tone_body/multicolored_body.
So if somebody see's a multicolored feathered_wings, then tagging multicolored_feathers would imply multicolored_body.
(And ironically the example thumbnail for multicolored_feathers, i.e., post #816980, would not qualify for multicolored_body.)

thegreatwolfgang said:
That's also another weird thing. IIRC we were encouraged to avoid <color>_body unless we cannot make out whether or not the character is covered in skin, fur, feathers, etc.
To quote from the black_body wiki, "If you can not tell what type of body the character has, simply putting black_body is the answer."

As far as I know, directly tagging <color>_body is discouraged because you should tag the type of body (<color>_fur/_feathers/_scales/_skin/etc) and let the implications do their thing, with <color>_body being explicitly tagged only when you can't tell what the body is made of. The <color>_body tags are otherwise a catch-all for any kind of body, so if you search for red_body you'll get results for red_fur, red_scales, etc.

thegreatwolfgang said:
As for a potential fix, I want to suggest to unimply all of them from <color>_body, though I have only found justification for fur, scales, and feathers.

That would cause <color>_body to not be tagged most of the time, reducing the viability of searching for particular body colors. Especially when it comes to body feathers vs fur, they can be hard to impossible to distinguish -- some people may call this fur, others feathers. Two posts with similar looking bodies can have one tagged as fur and the other feathers, because the taggers interpreted it differently. Or it may simply be tagged <color>_body because the tagger couldn't decide and went for the lowest common denominator. And it doesn't help that bodies that are supposed to be fur or feathers are drawn or rendered with flat edges so it loses sense of being fur or feathers, so if you're trying to find something, you can't necessarily be sure what type of body material to look for.

watsit said:
As far as I know, directly tagging <color>_body is discouraged because you should tag the type of body (<color>_fur/_feathers/_scales/_skin/etc) and let the implications do their thing, with <color>_body being explicitly tagged only when you can't tell what the body is made of. The <color>_body tags are otherwise a catch-all for any kind of body, so if you search for red_body you'll get results for red_fur, red_scales, etc.

That would cause <color>_body to not be tagged most of the time, reducing the viability of searching for particular body colors. Especially when it comes to body feathers vs fur, they can be hard to impossible to distinguish -- some people may call this fur, others feathers. Two posts with similar looking bodies can have one tagged as fur and the other feathers, because the taggers interpreted it differently. Or it may simply be tagged <color>_body because the tagger couldn't decide and went for the lowest common denominator. And it doesn't help that bodies that are supposed to be fur or feathers are drawn or rendered with flat edges so it loses sense of being fur or feathers, so if you're trying to find something, you can't necessarily be sure what type of body material to look for.

Still, people who default to tagging <color>_body would most likely be looking at the character's whole body, rather than specific body parts such as wings.

Thus, the question comes down to whether or not we should either:

• A) Start encouraging people to tag <color>_body separately, alongside every <color>_fur/scales/feathers as they appear on individual body parts; or
• B) Avoid tagging <color>_fur/scales/feathers altogether for individual body parts.

Both options would be hard to enforce due to Option A being a question of habit for taggers, and Option B being a question for new taggers who are unaware of the blanket exclusion for colours on body part textures (e.g., black feathered_wings =/= black_feathers).

Bumping this for further discussion before I start preparing the BUR.

A bit late to the party, but here’s what I think:

• unimply the scales/fur/feathers tags from the body tags
• tag body separately, and only if the character’s body overall, or especially the torso area, is of that color. Notice that we don’t even have tags for, as an example, white_torso, whereas white_tail gets plenty of use (17,500+). So I think “body” is the best way to cover that, as all the extremities such as tails/arms/legs/wings/face etc. already have their own tags, and the torso is the majority of the body anyway. So a character with a white torso and black extremities can get white_body and black_(tail/arms/legs/etc.) but not black_body unless the color is also seen on the torso somewhere. And anyway, I think this is a better name than “white_torso” as “body” applies better to ferals and other species that may not have what we think of as a torso normally… snakes and fish and things like that. I just don’t think the extremities should count towards “body” in this case.
• I hope this isn’t too confusing, but I think it would make sense to keep a distinction between this and the monochrome/two-tone/multicolored etc. body tags. So the above example can be tagged two-tone_body even though the main “body” is of one color, just to distinguish between monotone characters that are actually all (or at least primarily, with room for minor markings of different colors) all one color. For when the torso itself is actually of more than one color, not just the extremities, you can just use multiple (color)_body tags. I know it may sound counterintuitive, but I have a hunch that this is actually how people would intuitively use these tags if left to their own devices. In this case, leaving the monotone_scales/feathers/fur -> monotone_body implications would probably be fine. I don’t think those implications are causing any problems.

scaliespe said:

• tag body separately, and only if the character’s body overall, or especially the torso area, is of that color. Notice that we don’t even have tags for, as an example, white_torso, whereas white_tail gets plenty of use (17,500+). So I think “body” is the best way to cover that, as all the extremities such as tails/arms/legs/wings/face etc. already have their own tags, and the torso is the majority of the body anyway. So a character with a white torso and black extremities can get white_body and black_(tail/arms/legs/etc.) but not black_body unless the color is also seen on the torso somewhere. And anyway, I think this is a better name than “white_torso” as “body” applies better to ferals and other species that may not have what we think of as a torso normally… snakes and fish and things like that. I just don’t think the extremities should count towards “body” in this case.

We actually have <color>_chest and <color>_belly, so they do somewhat act as alternatives to <color>_torso.

So far, due to the rather vague nature of how e6 qualifies as being part of "body" (IIRC it includes the main body and extremities), the way I tag body colours is based on the criteria that they take up much of the entire character's colour (including extremities), and is not part of additional features such as manes, tufts, small markings, etc.

For example, if a character is mainly white in colour, with a black dipstick_tail or feet, then I would only tag it as white_body.
However, if a character's torso is white in colour, but all of their extremities (i.e., arms, legs, tail) are entirely black, then I would tag it as white_body + black_body.

Again, not a perfect tagging criteria, but I believe it works for people who would be searching for body colours.
I do think your suggestion would keep things consistent, but would it create a separate issue whereby extremities aren't considered as part of the body?

• I hope this isn’t too confusing, but I think it would make sense to keep a distinction between this and the monochrome/two-tone/multicolored etc. body tags. So the above example can be tagged two-tone_body even though the main “body” is of one color, just to distinguish between monotone characters that are actually all (or at least primarily, with room for minor markings of different colors) all one color. For when the torso itself is actually of more than one color, not just the extremities, you can just use multiple (color)_body tags. I know it may sound counterintuitive, but I have a hunch that this is actually how people would intuitively use these tags if left to their own devices. In this case, leaving the monotone_scales/feathers/fur -> monotone_body implications would probably be fine. I don’t think those implications are causing any problems.

On the other hand, my tagging method accounts for this monochrome/two-tone/multicolored_body issue, since it considers the colours of the extremities if they take up a large part of the character's colours. If not, then monotone_body works for cases where only a character's mane, wings, or any minor features are coloured differently.

thegreatwolfgang said:
We actually have <color>_chest and <color>_belly, so they do somewhat act as alternatives to <color>_torso.

Sure, but torso also includes the back, groin, and sides - maybe back is sometimes, but the others are not usually tagged.

So far, due to the rather vague nature of how e6 qualifies as being part of "body" (IIRC it includes the main body and extremities), the way I tag body colours is based on the criteria that they take up much of the entire character's colour (including extremities), and is not part of additional features such as manes, tufts, small markings, etc.

For example, if a character is mainly white in colour, with a black dipstick_tail or feet, then I would only tag it as white_body.
However, if a character's torso is white in colour, but all of their extremities (i.e., arms, legs, tail) are entirely black, then I would tag it as white_body + black_body.

Again, not a perfect tagging criteria, but I believe it works for people who would be searching for body colours.
I do think your suggestion would keep things consistent, but would it create a separate issue whereby extremities aren't considered as part of the body?
On the other hand, my tagging method accounts for this monochrome/two-tone/multicolored_body issue, since it considers the colours of the extremities if they take up a large part of the character's colours. If not, then monotone_body works for cases where only a character's mane, wings, or any minor features are coloured differently.

I wouldn’t mind your solution either, though it may be a bit more arbitrary. I’m not sure which would be better.

Putting the draft BUR scripts here for reference, going to be submitting it soon. Do tell me if I made an error or missed anything.
Note: *_skin, *_exoskeleton, and *_countershading are specifically left out unless de-implication is sought after later.

I have to say, I am not a big fan of this. I do tag dipstick_ears, dipstick_tails, fingerless_(markings), other markings, tail_feathers, wings, etc. as body colors. It's part of a character's body, so I tag it as such. Also, I wouldn't use the tag monotone_body, if there is "just" a small marking. Because then it's not monotone anymore.
oselotti_(character) for instance
post #3296573
He has brown stripes on his head, and brown toes, so I use the tag brown_fur for it.
@TheGreatWolfgang Would you tag it as monotone body? I don't think this is right.

dubsthefox said:
I have to say, I am not a big fan of this. I do tag dipstick_ears, dipstick_tails, fingerless_(markings), other markings, tail_feathers, wings, etc. as body colors. It's part of a character's body, so I tag it as such. Also, I wouldn't use the tag monotone_body, if there is "just" a small marking. Because then it's not monotone anymore.
oselotti_(character) for instance
post #3296573
He has brown stripes on his head, and brown toes, so I use the tag brown_fur for it.
@TheGreatWolfgang Would you tag it as monotone body? I don't think this is right.

If only a small detail on a character's body is coloured differently, I would still tag it as monotone_body.
Examples can include:

• A character can have a completely tan_body, but with red facial_markings.
• A human can have tan_skin but with a small tattoo on their body.
• And the post you referenced, post #3296573.

I would only tag two_tone_body or multicolored_body if the colour takes up a significant or large portion of the character's body.

The logic on how I am tagging this is based on the limited wiki definition for colours on body in general, i.e., a body texture consisting of a "distinct colour".
Do you feel that it's right to tag post #3296573 as multicolored_body/rainbow_body (and all the relevant <colour>_body tags), if say a tiny rainbow tattoo (🌈) is placed somewhere on their body?

thegreatwolfgang said:
Do you feel that it's right to tag post #3296573 as multicolored_body/rainbow_body, if say a tiny rainbow tattoo is placed somewhere on the body?

That's actually a good question. In theory, with my tagging behavior, I would have to tag it. But I think I would just keep this not tagged. And I am noticing, right now, I am inconsistent when it comes to this.
in this post:
post #3300756
I didn't tag the marking as red_fur, but I know I thought about it.

But I tag facial markings like this:
post #3294652
as black_fur without thinking about it. ^{_{(Ignoring his ear tips, for explanatory reasons)}}

Let's assume he had only those black markings, and the rest of his body is red. I would tag it as two_tone_fur.

dubsthefox said:
post #3294652
as black_fur without thinking about it. ^{_{(Ignoring his ear tips, for explanatory reasons)}}

Let's assume he had only those black markings, and the rest of his body is red. I would tag it as two_tone_fur.

The way I would see this is red_body white_body two_tone_body, but not black_body since it seems out of place/not distinct enough.
However, I would also tag red_fur white_fur black_fur multicolored_fur (as well as <color>_face & <color>_markings) since that would be accurate in the sense that all fur colours are seen.
However², current implication chains would have black_fur imply black_body, which in turn breaks my attempt at not tagging the latter tag.

This is basically the gist of my entire de-implication argument.
If someone tags black_fur because they saw the furred tips of the ears or the little stripe on the snout, it would automatically imply black_body.
Another issue I have is the potential for headshot_portraits to share the same conundrum in that <color>_body is automatically tagged even in the absence of an actual body.

But isn't the face a part of the body? For me, every part of a creature (legs, toes, ears, tail, fingers) is a part of the body, and not just the torso and the abdomen. Basically every part where skin is attached to. Or would be, if it comes to robots/synths.

dubsthefox said:
But isn't the face a part of the body? For me, every part of a creature (legs, toes, ears, tail, fingers) is a part of the body, and not just the torso and the abdomen. Basically every part where skin is attached to. Or would be, if it comes to robots/synths.

That becomes more of a question of how far we want to define body on the site, my main concern is more towards how "distinct" a colour is on the body, regardless of whether or not it is part of any select body part.

If we were to go with the literally-anything-that-is-attached-is-part-of-the-body route, imagine a character with black fur-tufted head (like in your avatar pic) and calling that black_body.
Alternatively, if we went to the extreme, it's like calling a tan-skinned human with black_hair as having a black_body (though hair does not imply body, whilst fur does).

dubsthefox said:
Basically every part where skin is attached to.

I realized that this isn't true. I don't tag penises, pawpads, pussies, anus, lips and membranous_wings as color_body. I don't know why I draw the line there. Even though those are, by my former explanation attempt, a part of the body.

thegreatwolfgang said:
...imagine a character with black fur-tufted head (like in your avatar pic) and calling that black_body.

I would consider the "tuft" on my sona's head as hair
But again I have to notice, I am inconsistent. If it comes to tuft on the head. It looks like I tend to tag it as hair instead of head_tuft. I was looking through my uploads, to find some examples, and I was thinking "why tf did I tag it with hair?" ^{_{I have to clean that up some day...}}
But in general, I interpret tuft as a part of the fur that's a little longer than the average fur of a character. And yes, I would tag tuft as fur and body. But I wouldn't tag hair as a part of the body.

My tagging behavior:

Yes, is body:
crotch-/arm-/back-/chest/-_tuft etc., tail_feathers¹, feathered_wings², balls³, arms, fingers, legs, toes, tails.

No, isn't body:
Pubes, arm-/back-/chest/-_hair etc., tail_frills¹/frills in general, membranous_wings², penises³ horns/spikes/claws/hooves, everything that's made of mucous membrane

^1,2,3 And no, I have no idea why it makes a different to me, if I tag those...

I would like to know how the vast majority of taggers does it, ^{_{or a what they think about the inconsistent shit I am doing here ._.}}

dubsthefox said:
I realized that this isn't true. I don't tag penises, pawpads, pussies, anus, lips and membranous_wings as color_body. I don't know why I draw the line there. Even though those are, by my former explanation attempt, a part of the body.

I guess it would make sense if their entire groin area is coloured differently, in which case, I would be fine if they are considered two_tone_body or multicolored_body.
However, something small like a little discolouration, scar, or beauty_mark, I wouldn't consider it a different body colour.

I would consider the "tuft" on my sona's head as hair
But again I have to notice, I am inconsistent. If it comes to tuft on the head. It looks like I tend to tag it as hair instead of head_tuft. I was looking through my uploads, to find some examples, and I was thinking "why tf did I tag it with hair?" ^{_{I have to clean that up some day...}}
But in general, I interpret tuft as a part of the fur that's a little longer than the average fur of a character. And yes, I would tag tuft as fur and body. But I wouldn't tag hair as a part of the body.

Interestingly enough, I would not consider hair to be head_tuft, seeing tuft be either in the form of fur_tuft or feather_tuft.
If notable strands of hair can be seen, I would tag it as hair. But if it is more fluffy-like, I would lean towards fur & tuft.

I would only consider hair to be part of a character's body colour unless their entire body is "buried" in it (as opposed to being "covered" in it; e.g., body_hair).
On the other hand, tuft would only be tagged as part of their body colour if it takes up a large part of their body (such as Renamon's neck/chest_tuft), and not when it is something small (like chin_tuft).

On a separate note, I tend to find problems differentiating between hair and fur when it comes to manes.
Some horses tend to have more hair-like manes while lions and furred_dragons can have more fur-like manes, though it really depends on the artist's artstyle.
post #3334796 post #3338685

My tagging behavior:

Yes, is body:
crotch-/arm-/back-/chest/-_tuft etc., tail_feathers¹, feathered_wings², balls³, arms, fingers, legs, toes, tails.

No, isn't body:
Pubes, arm-/back-/chest/-_hair etc., tail_frills¹/frills in general, membranous_wings², penises³ horns/spikes/claws/hooves, everything that's made of mucous membrane

^1,2,3 And no, I have no idea why it makes a different to me, if I tag those...

I would like to know how the vast majority of taggers does it, ^{_{or a what they think about the inconsistent shit I am doing here ._.}}

I tag literally every colour on every body part (e.g., post #3325236) and I'm pretty sure there are some colour tags that I missed.

Though, for body colour, I really take it as how much of the colour is the character being covered in, with the exclusion of minor/non-significant features.
E.g., If an entire arm is coloured differently, then yes (as being part of the body's colours). If it's just a small marking or fingers that are coloured differently, the no.
Though this rule only applies to <color>_body specifically and not the general <color>_arms/hands/fingers/etc tags which I tag every colour of, regardless of significance.

I don't really want to commit to excluding specific body parts since I can imagine there be certain cases where they can be a significant part of the character's body, such as the wings of a butterfly or the spikes of a porcupine.