The bulk update request #9962 is pending approval.

Reason: Going through countershade_* A through Z to remove redundancies.

All examples of countershade_anus seem to just be countershade_butts.

Countershade_balls has no posts where the balls aren't just one color, so it's just referring to the crotch.

Countershade_eyes can seemingly refer to two_tone_eyes or eyeliner/eye_markings that goes under the eyes. Best to scrap it.

Countershade_eyebrows seems to refer to eyeshadow that goes up to the eyebrows when it doesn't refer to two_tone_eyebrows, but it seems more useful as an alias for the latter.

All examples of countershade_fingers are ether finger_markings or countefshade_hands. But it could be distinct if applied to posts were only the fingers have countershading.

Countershade_hair just seems to be when the hair has shading. for some reason it won't let me change this. I don't know why.

While I'm on I, should countershade_ear or countershade_inner_ear be used as an umbrella for the colored *_inner_ear tags?

I'm on the fence with countershade_jaw. It seems to be used for in place of countershade_face, but I can see it being used for when only the jaw as countershading. But I'm not sure if there is enough posts or demand for that.

Aside from post #5208888, countershade_snout (which countershade_muzzle is aliased to) seems to just be another case of countershade_face. Same with countershade_mouth.

Countershade_nose can once again refer to countershade_face, but it can also refer to the marking that goes from the nose then up the face. Does anyone know what that's called? It's getting too late to do a deep dive.

I didn't find any post under the first page of countershade_penis where the penis is a different color on either side. It's just countershade_crotch again.

What would a countershade_pussy even look like? Would the countershading stop half way through?

I guess countershade_paws can stay because they can refer to handpaws, not just feet. But countershade_pawpads just seems to be when the pawpads are a color other then the standard. The many colored *_pawpads tags can handle them just fine.

My logic for countershade_penic appeals to countershade_sheath too.

There are no posts on the first page of countershade_teos where only the toes are differently colored and said toes have different colors on the top and bottom. This makes the tag no definite from toe_markings.

Countershade_tongue doesn't have any posts where the tongue has different colors on either side. But I can't thank of another tag to alias it to. So it stays for now.

Shading on the teeth is the only thing I can think of with countershade_teeth. for some reason it won't let me change this. I don't know way.

Countershade_genitalia is an umbrella tag for many of the above tags, (balls, penis, pussy, sheath) and sense all those tags don't have much to differentiate them form countershade_crotch (even though two or three of them could) it stands to resen that this one wouldn't either.

Countershade_breasts and countershade_pecs can actually be useful for when only the breasts/pecs have countershading, or when only those and the crotch but not the in between have it. But countershade_chest would be even better for these cases.

Look, I know reverse_countershading is probably more technical acqurit, but real life doesn't have animals with blue_countershading. I would imagine most people on this site would consider countershading to be just another type of marking. And if we don't have separate tags for every light/dark variant of each color, then way do we need a tag that implies them?

It could also be for countershade_back, but I think skunk_stripe is probably a better tag for this. At someone's sajestin I'm now using back_stripe

As has been implied I'm willing to change this BUR if good points are made or if the way a tag is used changes. Thanks in advance!

I'd agree with most of these, but as those "has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR" messages indicate, some tags you want to alias away have other aliases or implications already that will need to be removed first (you can just make another BUR to remove them, giving that BUR a Topic ID 54202 to have it appear in this thread; don't need to reject this BUR to handle it).

1eyed-rosd said:
It could also be for countershade_back, but I think skunk_stripe is probably a better tag for this.

I'm not keen on having a tag like skunk_stripe in general, since it's just a one- or two-line stripe down the back and tail. It doesn't have to be on a skunk, while such a tag name would likely dissuade people from using it on non-skunks, making it largely synonymous with skunk. I think a tag name like back_stripe and/or tail_stripe would be better.

The bulk update request #9963 is pending approval.

remove implication countershade_pussy (296) -> countershade_genitalia (1705)
remove implication countershade_balls (1182) -> countershade_genitalia (1705)
remove implication countershade_penis (487) -> countershade_genitalia (1705)
remove implication countershade_sheath (80) -> countershade_genitalia (1705)

Reason: I will understand these here so that I can alias them in the main one.

watsit said:
I'd agree with most of these, but as those "has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR" messages indicate, some tags you want to alias away have other aliases or implications already that will need to be removed first (you can just make another BUR to remove them, giving that BUR a Topic ID 54202 to have it appear in this thread; don't need to reject this BUR to handle it).

Way ahead of you

I'm not keen on having a tag like skunk_stripe in general, since it's just a one- or two-line stripe down the back and tail. It doesn't have to be on a skunk, while such a tag name would likely dissuade people from using it on non-skunks, making it largely synonymous with skunk. I think a tag name like back_stripe and/or tail_stripe would be better.

Good idea. I think I'll make that change.

1eyed-rosd said:
create alias countershading_toes (0) -> toe_markings (62)
create alias countershad_genitalia (0) -> countershade_crotch (1314)

These look like typos.

I always thought countershade_belly was supposed to be for when only the belly has countershading:
post #3896407

Looking at the actual usage? It really just seems like people use it in place of countershade_torso.

watsit said:
These look like typos.

I think they are. I'll fix it.

faucet said:
I always thought countershade_belly was supposed to be for when only the belly has countershading:
post #3896407

Looking at the actual usage? It really just seems like people use it in place of countershade_torso.

And that's the thing. Many of these tag could be used for something more specific, but in practice they just end up being used as alts for others more established tags. And I don't know how to get people to tag them constantly.

This is my thread, it was made for me.

Hi, I'm the guy who's tagged countershade_something on probably thousands of posts at this point, used to use countershade_chest before it was aliased away, and manually replaced countershade_balls with countershade_crotch at least a few times in my day. These all sound like good suggestions, but I'd like to hear people's arguments for or against bringing countershade_chest back. Personally I used to treat torso as meaning just below chest level, and tag both if it was relevant. Though I'm not finding any examples of characters with countershading that ends at chest level. Only characters who are wearing too much to tell.

Anything with _belly is a minefield right now because we haven't gotten a ruling yet on whether "belly" is supposed to be a synonym for the lower front torso, or specifically belly fat.

While we're here, I'd like to suggest removing the countershade_thighs -> countershade_legs implication. I've been using it for inner thighs specifically, a common pattern analogous to countershaded armpits. "Countershade_legs" and "countershade_arms" to me is like... husky pattern or something. Although I'm not sure husky patterns even count as countershading. Seems like it shouldn't count if the lighter color makes up a solid majority of the body.

errorist said:
These all sound like good suggestions, but I'd like to hear people's arguments for or against bringing countershade_chest back. Personally I used to treat torso as meaning just below chest level, and tag both if it was relevant. Though I'm not finding any examples of characters with countershading that ends at chest level. Only characters who are wearing too much to tell.

[...]

While we're here, I'd like to suggest removing the countershade_thighs -> countershade_legs implication. I've been using it for inner thighs specifically, a common pattern analogous to countershaded armpits.

The point of the countershade_* tags is that some body part has a "two tone" color pattern (or two shades of one tone) that creates the appearance of inverse shading. So for countershade_x to apply, x would need two colors (or two shades of one color), e.g. countershade_thighs would mean the thighs on their own have a countershade pattern, not that they contribute to a countershade pattern on the legs. In that vein, countershaded chest, belly, and thighs would be easily misused or misunderstood to be when the chest, belly, or thighs are their own solid color, creating a countershade pattern on the torso or legs. countershade_x doesn't simply mean "x is a different color"; that's really how the various x_color tag should be used (e.g. shouldn't tag blue_balls if the entire crotch or lower body area is all blue, only if the balls are blue and things around it aren't blue, otherwise that's how we get posts tag-bombed with like blue_hands + blue_arms + blue_chest + blue_belly + blue_face + blue_sheath + blue_balls + blue_butt + blue_legs + blue_feet, (+ any other taggable piece of blue anatomy), for a character that is blue_body+monotone_body). Even if there may be some instances where countershaded chest, belly, or thighs is legitimately visible, they're too easily misunderstood and misused.

As it is, I've seen posts get tagged with countershade_<everything> because the character was shaded, i.e. from lighting, not a body color pattern. countershade_tongue/countershade_pussy also seem to get misused a lot to mean the tongue/pussy is a distinct color, not even contributing to a countershade pattern (let alone have one itself). So the fewer specific countershade tags to get misused, the better.

watsit said:
The point of the countershade_* tags is that some body part has a "two tone" color pattern (or two shades of one tone) that creates the appearance of inverse shading. So for countershade_x to apply, x would need two colors (or two shades of one color), e.g. countershade_thighs would mean the thighs on their own have a countershade pattern, not that they contribute to a countershade pattern on the legs. In that vein, countershaded chest, belly, and thighs would be easily misused or misunderstood to be when the chest, belly, or thighs are their own solid color, creating a countershade pattern on the torso or legs. countershade_x doesn't simply mean "x is a different color"; that's really how the various x_color tag should be used (e.g. shouldn't tag blue_balls if the entire crotch or lower body area is all blue, only if the balls are blue and things around it aren't blue, otherwise that's how we get posts tag-bombed with like blue_hands + blue_arms + blue_chest + blue_belly + blue_face + blue_sheath + blue_balls + blue_butt + blue_legs + blue_feet, (+ any other taggable piece of blue anatomy), for a character that is blue_body+monotone_body). Even if there may be some instances where countershaded chest, belly, or thighs is legitimately visible, they're too easily misunderstood and misused.

As it is, I've seen posts get tagged with countershade_<everything> because the character was shaded, i.e. from lighting, not a body color pattern. countershade_tongue/countershade_pussy also seem to get misused a lot to mean the tongue/pussy is a distinct color, not even contributing to a countershade pattern (let alone have one itself). So the fewer specific countershade tags to get misused, the better.

I think you make really good points. As is evident by my other BURs, I have a bias for detail specificity and thoroughness so I prefer having more tags. But it is true that the detail is pointless if people aren't going to intuitively tag pots cretly. I might have to think the BUR a bit more later.

I think there's merit to being able to specify that a character has countershading and that it happens to cover this or that part. I just don't see the value in being hyperspecific about which parts.

Anyway, popping back in to mention I discovered a countershade_breasts tag, and I'd suggest that if we do back countershade_chest, maybe countershade_breasts should be aliased to it.