The bulk update request #5593 is pending approval.

create alias colored_in (2) -> colored-in (294)
change category colored-in (294) -> meta
create implication colored-in_version (25) -> colored-in (294)

Reason: Rebuilding the colored tag from the ground up to clear all of the confusion around it!

This new tag has a clearer, narrower definition than colored.

Goes with colored-in version, which serves the old purpose of "colored", to denote posts that are the colored version of a sketch.

See topic #40278 for more.

I don't see why a separate tag is needed. Just update the definition of colored (all current uses of the tag are valid for the new definition). And alias colored-in_version to it since we don't tag version differences of posts (there's no line_art_version, cum_version, night_version, <character>_version, etc).

watsit said:
I don't see why a separate tag is needed. Just update the definition of colored (all current uses of the tag are valid for the new definition).

That’s not true, see examples post #4310221 and post #4298691.
post #4310221 post #4298691
I personally cannot skim through 612 pages of content to re-tag them. They were tagged before the definition contained in colored-in was discussed about.

watsit said:
And alias colored-in_version to it since we don't tag version differences of posts (there's no line_art_version, cum_version, night_version, <character>_version, etc).

Colored was made to tag a version difference between posts. It wasn’t respected partly because the tag’s name is too vague.
Meta tags aren’t fully TWYS, they’re like the non character-related lore tags.

I don’t think the colored-in version tag will lead to a slippery slope situation, if anything, I am trying to fix the slippery slope situation of colored applying to every artwork with color in them.

Mods decide which tags get meta or invalidated, so even if people were to use a "night version" tag, it could simply get invalidated.

dimoretpinel said:
That’s not true, see examples post #4310221 and post #4298691.
post #4310221 post #4298691

Partially colored counts for being colored in. I don't know if colored line art does, but there are colored-in sections in that example, and there will always be edge cases no matter how it's named (for instance post #3996756 is lineless, which isn't "colored in" as there's no lines to color inside of).

dimoretpinel said:
Colored was made to tag a version difference between posts. It wasn’t respected partly because the tag’s name is too vague.

And was an invalid thing to tag to start with, as we don't tag version differences elsewhere.

dimoretpinel said:
Meta tags aren’t fully TWYS, they’re like the non character-related lore tags.I don’t think the colored-in version tag will lead to a slippery slope situation, if anything, I am trying to fix the slippery slope situation of colored applying to every artwork with color in them.

Mods decide which tags get meta or invalidated, so even if people were to use a "night version" tag, it could simply get invalidated.

Just as they should invalidate "colored-in version", IMO. It will lead to a slippery slope, because if we can tag one kind of version difference, there's no reason to not tag other version differences. Tagging other version differences will get messy very fast as there's an infinite number of ways two versions of an image can be different, and it's arbitrary to tag colored versions but not any other version.

Colored is what it is already, used for posts with color. If it applies to too many posts, it can be invalidated, but I don't see "colored-in" being in less need of invalidation in that case.