Topic: Tag implication: striped_markings -> striped_body

The tag implication #70312 striped_markings -> striped_body is pending approval.

Reason: If there’s striped markings, the body is clearly striped

Is there a reasonable difference between the two tags?

A character or animal with a striped body

Stripe marking of a different shade/color on a character's body

It sounds like they should be aliased. If a body is striped, there's striped marking, and if there's striped markings, the body is striped.

watsit said:
Is there a reasonable difference between the two tags?
It sounds like they should be aliased. If a body is striped, there's striped marking, and if there's striped markings, the body is striped.

would striped, like, gloves be striped_body? generally we don't consider marking colours as body colours, so should we do the same with marking designs?

watsit said:
Is there a reasonable difference between the two tags?
It sounds like they should be aliased. If a body is striped, there's striped marking, and if there's striped markings, the body is striped.

I didn’t think about that, yeah maybe they should be aliased instead

I don't think they should be implicated/merged together, or at the very least, should be flipped like on topic #35400.

Having striped_markings does not necessarily mean having a striped_body.
For example, a character could draw a couple of stripes on their face and it would technically be considered striped_markings.
However, I would hardly classify it as a fully striped_body like a tiger's.

robotdragon5050 said:
I didn’t think about that, yeah maybe they should be aliased instead

Previously rejected, see topic #41098, topic #41097, & topic #44213.

I'm 100% against aliasing it to striped_body for the mere fact that it would pollute the tag with striped_tail.

dfn-451 said:
would striped, like, gloves be striped_body? generally we don't consider marking colours as body colours, so should we do the same with marking designs?

thegreatwolfgang said:
Having striped_markings does not necessarily mean having a striped_body.
For example, a character could draw a couple of stripes on their face and it would technically be considered striped_markings.
However, I would hardly classify it as a fully striped_body like a tiger's.

Note that "body" for tagging purposes typically means any part of a character's outer "physical" self (excluding clothing, accessories, etc), not just the torso. If a character has primarily blue fur, but white fur gloves_(marking) or tail or face, they'd be tagged both blue_fur and white_fur, implying both blue_body and white_body. I'd also expect the stripe color to generally be tagged, which would also imply <color>_body for the stripes. I see no reason why striped_* and related should be any different, and would only cause confusion over body vs torso.

In either case, both wikis say the same thing, just worded differently. They both say they applies when a character's body is striped, and they both make sense within the context of the terms used, so the other should always be tagged if the one is.

watsit said:
Note that "body" for tagging purposes typically means any part of a character's outer "physical" self (excluding clothing, accessories, etc), not just the torso. If a character has primarily blue fur, but white fur gloves_(marking) or tail or face, they'd be tagged both blue_fur and white_fur, implying both blue_body and white_body. I'd also expect the stripe color to generally be tagged, which would also imply <color>_body for the stripes. I see no reason why striped_* and related should be any different, and would only cause confusion over body vs torso.

In either case, both wikis say the same thing, just worded differently. They both say they applies when a character's body is striped, and they both make sense within the context of the terms used, so the other should always be tagged if the one is.

I know that's what the wikis technically say, but this is just a rehash of the same discussion that happened on the other thread, as well as what I was broadly trying to fix on topic #33859 (by unimplying <colour>_fur from <colour>_body, etc.).

IMO, lumping every tiny bit of colour into <colour>_body would needlessly dilute it to the point the latter becomes useless, just as @furrypickle said.
Likewise, having *_markings imply or be aliased to *_body would make searching for the latter (as in full-body markings) impossible.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I know that's what the wikis technically say, but this is just a rehash of the same discussion that happened on the other thread, as well as what I was broadly trying to fix on topic #33859 (by unimplying <colour>_fur from <colour>_body, etc.).

Technically or not, this is what the tags mean and how they're expected to be used. Even if you want to find some way to fix it, their current meaning, understanding, and uses have them conflated to the point that they should be aliased together. It would be better to start fresh than to try to untangle what's already here and change how people understand and use the tags, IMO.