The tag alias #64395 spotted_markings -> spotted_body has been rejected.
Reason: Aren't these exactly the same?
EDIT: The tag alias spotted_markings -> spotted_body (forum #380503) has been rejected by @Cloudpie.
Updated by auto moderator
Topic: [REJECTED] Tag alias: spotted_markings -> spotted_body
Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
cloudpie said:
Reason: Aren't these exactly the same?
No, see topic #27198 where the tags originated from. It also lists a plethora of other *_markings & *_(marking) type tags, and spotted_markings/striped_markings just so happen to be one of the subtags for markings.
In addition, IIRC spotted_body/striped_body is meant for characters whose bodies are either partially or completely covered by the aforementioned features (imagine cheetah or tiger).
It does not encompass insignificant or minute body part details; e.g., a raccoon's singular striped_face or a close-up shot of a striped_penis does not mean that the character has a striped_body.
thegreatwolfgang said:
In addition, IIRC spotted_body/striped_body is meant for characters whose bodies are either partially or completely covered by the aforementioned features (imagine cheetah or tiger).
It does not encompass insignificant or minute body part details; e.g., a raccoon's singular striped_face or a close-up shot of a striped_penis does not mean that the character has a striped_body.
This doesn't match how we use the [color]_body tags, i think it should be standardized. For [color]_body, if the character has any amount of that color, they get the tag.
thegreatwolfgang said:
e.g., a raccoon's singular striped_face or a close-up shot of a striped_penis does not mean that the character has a striped_body.
Striped_tail currently implies striped_markings, indicating that a closeup shot of a striped tail (or a character with stripes on only the tail) does count for striped markings even though the rest of the body may not have stripes.
cloudpie said:
This doesn't match how we use the [color]_body tags, i think it should be standardized. For [color]_body, if the character has any amount of that color, they get the tag.Striped_tail currently implies striped_markings, indicating that a closeup shot of a striped tail (or a character with stripes on only the tail) does count for striped markings even though the rest of the body may not have stripes.
I think usually the color needs to cover a significant amount of a character's body in order to count toward one of the body tags. so like, a character with an entire arm covered with green fur would be tagged with green_fur which implies green_body but a character that has a pink heart-shaped mark on the fur of their arm and no pink anywhere else would be tagged with just pink_markings, which does not imply any body color tags.
spotted_body and striped_body should probably imply their marking counterpart, though.
cloudpie said:
This doesn't match how we use the [color]_body tags, i think it should be standardized. For [color]_body, if the character has any amount of that color, they get the tag.
I have made the argument (see topic #33859) against having any amount of colour on a character being equated to a full-on <color>_body tag.
The thing with the <color>_body tag is that, in my opinion, should only have been applied to posts where a significant amount of the character's body is of that colour.
That is still up for debate though, so we will have to wait and see the outcome of that.
Striped_tail currently implies striped_markings, indicating that a closeup shot of a striped tail (or a character with stripes on only the tail) does count for striped markings even though the rest of the body may not have stripes.
Yeah, that's the point I'm trying to make. Aliasing striped_markings to striped_body would in turn change the implication for striped_tail (making it imply striped_body), which does not make sense in my view (e.g., post #4376296).
juansanchez said:
I think usually the color needs to cover a significant amount of a character's body in order to count toward one of the body tags. so like, a character with an entire arm covered with green fur would be tagged with green_fur which implies green_body but a character that has a pink heart-shaped mark on the fur of their arm and no pink anywhere else would be tagged with just pink_markings, which does not imply any body color tags.
forum #347551 admins said color can be tagged no matter how small
thegreatwolfgang said:
Yeah, that's the point I'm trying to make. Aliasing striped_markings to striped_body would in turn change the implication for striped_tail (making it imply striped_body), which does not make sense in my view (e.g., post #4376296).
Whoops, yeah I got that part backwards, sorry
cloudpie said:
forum #347551 admins said color can be tagged no matter how small
See the next comment as well, forum #347599.
I'd be more supportive of a practical use of the <colour>_body tag, rather than a strictly accurate use of it to the "point it is ridiculous."
thegreatwolfgang said:
See the next comment as well, forum #347599.I'd be more supportive of a practical use of the <colour>_body tag, rather than a strictly accurate use of it to the "point it is ridiculous."
I see, fair enough!
The tag alias spotted_markings -> spotted_body (forum #380503) has been rejected by @Cloudpie.