Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions
Is it fair to use fur or scales for a species that usually has them but they are not displayed in the picture.
(e.g. for fur) post #6013083 post #6012023 post #6011638
(e.g. for scales) post #5999984 post #5997468 post #5999987
What if the scales are represented as spots? Should they be considered spots, scales, or both?
I think this is a good question. My approach is to go image-by-image, and make a judgement call based on what I see.
This is a good example:
overandunder said:
(e.g. for fur) post #6011638
I would normally tag "black fur" on an image of a jackal, but in the case of that image, I'd go with "black body" instead, because the depiction of the character implies black skin, not black fur.
In cases of more cartoony images, it's more subjective. I think it's also more subjective in the case of reptile-like characters. The images of scaled-body creatures you posted are also good examples. Many artists drawing dragons / lizards employ a style where you understand the character has grey scales or green scales or whatever, but they are not drawing the 10,000 plate-like skin patterns that denote scales.
In summary - I think it's a judgement call. I'd go image-by-image. If I don't see "fur" I wouldn't use a "fur" tag, but I'd argue it's fair to have a different standard for lizard-like characters.
TWYS. If it looks like a texture, then tag that texture. Fur texture? tag fur. No fur texture? don't tag as fur, tag it as body instead. If a scalie type was drawn like it has spots, then tag it as scalie and spots. If an artist wants it to be tagged with x texture... then they should actually draw that texture.
It doesn't make any sense to tag it as what we know/assume it should normally be, if it's not visibly being drawn that way. If you can't see it on them in that image, then it's not visibly present. Tags should describe what is visible in that image. People should be able to find a visible texture with searches, and not have it filled with cartoon skin on animals-that-normally-have-x-so-we-can-assume-it's-implied... No. So just, TWYS.
furrypickle said:
TWYS. If it looks like a texture, then tag that texture. Fur texture? tag fur. No fur texture? don't tag as fur, tag it as body instead.
Tufts and such should count as tagging fur, too. Something like
post #6013725
which otherwise doesn't have a fur texture and most lines are sharp and clean, a few tufts outlined on the cheeks and chest give enough indication to tag fur. A similar thing should apply for scales.
overandunder said:
Is it fair to use fur or scales for a species that usually has them but they are not displayed in the picture.(e.g. for fur) post #6013083 post #6012023 post #6011638
(e.g. for scales) post #5999984 post #5997468 post #5999987
No, our TWYS policy stipulates that you should only tag what they visually appear to be, never what they are assumed to be.
Failure to follow this policy may result in your account getting slapped with a Tagging Abuse violation.
If it is ambiguous and you are not sure what texture it is, then just use *_body as the others mentioned above.
What if the scales are represented as spots? Should they be considered spots, scales, or both?
You still tag what they most reasonably appear to be first, i.e., *_skin and *_spots.
As for scales, two circular spots is not enough to justify it IMO, but a dense cluster of them might.
Though I'm not stopping you if you do want to tag these as scales since it could also be argued that it looks just like scale spots on skin.
thegreatwolfgang said:
- post #6013083 - purple_skin, purple_feathers, black_hair, purple_hair
- [...]
- post #6011638 - black_skin
- post #5999984 - grey_skin, grey_feathers, grey_hair
- post #5997468 - green_skin, yellow_skin, brown_hair
- post #5999987 - pink_skin, white_skin, blonde_hair
If it is ambiguous and you are not sure what texture it is, then just use *_body as the others mentioned above.
What makes these "skin"? Skin does have a particular texture, and way of interacting with light, like you can see in images like
post #4604918 post #4648439
That your examples lack the detail to accurately portray skin could also speak to their lack of detail to accurately portray fur (very short/fine fur especially) or scales or whatever they're intended to have. I don't think it's fair to assume skin by default unless you can tell it's something else, especially considering the majority of creatures here aren't meant to have skin. Saying stuff like these:
post #6013083 post #6015696 post #5509988
are <color>_skin rather than a generic <color>_body wouldn't really help anyone, and would only serve to dilute the skin tags into uselessness.
watsit said:
What makes these "skin"? Skin does have a particular texture, and way of interacting with light, like you can see in images like
post #4604918 post #4648439That your examples lack the detail to accurately portray skin could also speak to their lack of detail to accurately portray fur (very short/fine fur especially) or scales or whatever they're intended to have. I don't think it's fair to assume skin by default unless you can tell it's something else, especially considering the majority of creatures here aren't meant to have skin. Saying stuff like these:
post #6013083 post #6015696 post #5509988
are <color>_skin rather than a generic <color>_body wouldn't really help anyone, and would only serve to dilute the skin tags into uselessness.
Nah, literally nobody is tagging the way you're strictly describing it.
The most simplest definition for skin is "a smooth texture" as described under some of the "General Anatomy" tabs you see in wikis.
As far as I'm concerned, if it looks smooth and is not fur, feathers, scales, exoskeleton, etc., then it is skin.
The <color>_body tags are only reserved for truly ambiguous scenarios, like mecha, goo_creature (e.g., ditto_(pokémon)), ethereal, "skin-less" characters (e.g., navi, mimic), etc.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Nah, literally nobody is tagging the way you're strictly describing it.
that's pretty much how I tag body colours. I'd pretty much only ever use *_skin for humans, humanoids, cetaceans, and the bald bits of other primates and Sonic characters and such.
searching *_skin and browsing through, that does appear to be how most other users use the skin body texture as well.
dba_afish said:
that's pretty much how I tag body colours. I'd pretty much only ever use *_skin for humans, humanoids, cetaceans, and the bald bits of other primates and Sonic characters and such.searching *_skin and browsing through, that does appear to be how most other users use the skin body texture as well.
I'm struggling to find the rationale here for excluding *_skin from characters who "aren't meant to have skin".
Are you saying that you'd tag something like:
thegreatwolfgang said:
I'm struggling to find the rationale here for excluding *_skin from characters who "aren't meant to have skin".
It's not "excluding *_skin from characters who aren't meant to have skin", but "not assuming skin for a solid color". That the characters aren't meant to have skin is just to show how silly it seems to be to assume bodies are made of skin as a default. It's like assuming a random disembodied hand is a human unless you can tell it's an anthro or feral. If we don't want to assume a disembodied hand is anthro (i.e. a body is fur) without something to indicate it, that's fine, but to then assume human (i.e. skin) is weird; not only in having the assumption (if we didn't want to make an assumption, why then assume anything?) but that the assumption is for something this site doesn't focus on makes it extra weird.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Are you saying that you'd tag something like:
- post #5248800 as tan_skin for the human, but not white_skin for the horse?
- post #2753213 as black_body rather than specifically black_skin?
Personally I'd probably just tag <color>_body for the first one. For the second one I certainly wouldn't tag black_skin since it's clearly some kind of latex or glossy rubber, not skin. Related to that second example, I find the latex_skin tag poorly named, using "skin" as a synonym for "body" rather than the particular material like yo- we humans have. black_latex, latex_body, and black_body would be the tags I'd think of. I wouldn't say this:
is "skin_bra" and "skin_panties" she's wearing on her purple_scales.
watsit said:
Personally I'd probably just tag <color>_body for the first one.
Assuming that you mean tagging <color>_body for the horse, would changing the human's head to that of a canine or a horse while maintaining the same skin colour affect your tan_skin tagging?
For the second one I certainly wouldn't tag black_skin since it's clearly some kind of latex or glossy rubber, not skin. Related to that second example, I find the latex_skin tag poorly named, using "skin" as a synonym for "body" rather than the particular material like
yo-we humans have. black_latex, latex_body, and black_body would be the tags I'd think of.
I'd still personally tag it as black_skin to be honest, since latex_skin is still a type of skin.
I wouldn't say this:
is "skin_bra" and "skin_panties" she's wearing on her purple_scales.
On the other hand, if it was clearly separate latex_clothing or a full-body gimp_suit, I would tag it as black_clothing instead of black_skin.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Assuming that you mean tagging <color>_body for the horse
<color>_body for the horse and human (though really, I have a bad habit of not tagging human skin colors, because tagging "pink", "red", "brown", or "tan" for normal skin tones feels wrong, bordering offensive in some cases, and I can often see calling it a different color when I look at it again; doesn't help also that "tan skin" is easy to misinterpret as "tanned skin", which indicates a different/darker color closer to brown or red/pink, and "white skin" and "black skin" mean something different in normal speech than literal white and black).
thegreatwolfgang said:
I'd still personally tag it as black_skin to be honest, since latex_skin is still a type of skin.
That sounds like saying "fur_scales is still a type of scales". Latex and skin in this context are two distinct materials, just as fur and scales are distinct materials. Having a body made of latex means the body is latex, not "latex skin". What makes latex_skin different from latex_body?
If anything, this really sounds backwards. "Fur skin" is a term used for skinned fur, fur that's been skinned/removed from a creature and turned into clothing or a rug or some other kind of adornment. I can understand why "latex skin" wouldn't mean something similar since "latex" isn't a normal body material to skin in that sense, but it does make it difficult to bring up comparisons like "latex skin" vs "fur skin", since the latter actually means something (fur that's been skinned/removed from an animal), but not in the sense that "latex skin" means (not latex that's been skinned/removed from a creature). It can also create ambiguity and confusion in some cases (e.g. a latex_creature that has visibly had its latex body skinned and is being used as clothing or a rug or something).
thegreatwolfgang said:
On the other hand, if it was clearly separate latex_clothing or a full-body gimp_suit, I would tag it as black_clothing instead of black_skin.
It's visibly the same material. Fur/scale clothing is the same kind of fur/scale as a fur/scale body, so latex clothing is the same kind of latex as a latex body. If one looks like a "latex skin" material (which is a type of skin), the other does too. Sure, there's a reason why you wouldn't tag <color>_fur or <color>_skin for this kind of clothing (due to the <color>_body implication), but if you don't see it as a type of skin when used as clothing, it shouldn't be seen as a type of skin when used as a body.
watsit said:
That sounds like saying "fur_scales is still a type of scales". Latex and skin in this context are two distinct materials, just as fur and scales are distinct materials. Having a body made of latex means the body is latex, not "latex skin". What makes latex_skin different from latex_body?
What makes <color>_skin different from <color>_body for that matter? (Rhetorical question.)
I can see that latex_skin is used for those with "smooth texture" while latex_body can be used as an umbrella tag for latex_skin, latex_fur, and the ambiguous scenarios that I mentioned before.
You could argue unusual skin tags like rock_skin would not be skin and I would agree with that since it does not fit the "smooth texture" definition.
However, asking for people to adhere with your more stringent definition of it may be a tall task.
It's visibly the same material. Fur/scale clothing is the same kind of fur/scale as a fur/scale body, so latex clothing is the same kind of latex as a latex body. If one looks like a "latex skin" material (which is a type of skin), the other does too. Sure, there's a reason why you wouldn't tag <color>_fur or <color>_skin for this kind of clothing (due to the <color>_body implication), but if you don't see it as a type of skin when used as clothing, it shouldn't be seen as a type of skin when used as a body.
It can be a type of skin OR a type of clothing material. I don't know why you are framing it like it can only be one but not the other.
If someone is wearing a fur_coat, you don't tag it with <color>_fur but instead <color>_clothing (and fur_(fabric)).
If the fur_coat was somehow alive (like with living_suit), then I would tag both <color>_fur and <color>_clothing.
It being a clothing material shouldn't automatically exclude it from being considered as a type of skin, unless it conflicts with the "smooth texture" definition.
thegreatwolfgang said:
What makes <color>_skin different from <color>_body for that matter? (Rhetorical question.)
Not sure what you're getting at with that rhetorical question. As I said in your link, skin does have a particular texture and look to it, just as fur and scales and metal have particular textures and looks to them. <color>_body is the catch all that covers the various materials a body can be made of, including latex or skin, and is used as a generic fallback when you can't tell what specific material it is.
Would it be clearer if, when I say "skin", I'm talking about "human skin" or "human-like skin"? The actual material the body is made of.
thegreatwolfgang said:
I can see that latex_skin is used for those with "smooth texture" while latex_body can be used as an umbrella tag for latex_skin, latex_fur, and the ambiguous scenarios that I mentioned before.
latex_fur can also have a smooth texture:
post #4589008
thegreatwolfgang said:
You could argue unusual skin tags like rock_skin would not be skin and I would agree with that since it does not fit the "smooth texture" definition.
Skin is more than just a "smooth texture". Skin is quite porous when you look at it in detail, also allowing some color from underneath or within to "bleed" through in places (spots of red or pink, veins, etc). It can be rough and hairy or smooth and hairless (or rough and hairless or smooth and hairy). That skin is often portrayed as smooth/flat and hairless due to lack of detail (or style preferences) I don't think is enough justification to assume a character's body is skin by default (especially, again, when it's not the expectation for things here to have, so flooding it on ambiguous body materials (or certain types of known body materials like latex) would make finding "real" skin that much more difficult).
thegreatwolfgang said:
It can be a type of skin OR a type of clothing material. I don't know why you are framing it like it can only be one but not the other.
That's not what I'm saying. A "type of skin" doesn't make sense here because "skin" in this context means a particular type of body material, not something that is itself made of some type of material.
thegreatwolfgang said:
If someone is wearing a fur_coat, you don't tag it with <color>_fur but instead <color>_clothing (and fur_(fabric)).
Yes, because of the implication to <color>_body, like I said. But it is still fur. Similarly, if some body material is "latex skin", which is skin, then that same material used as clothing would skill be skin. It's not like the idea of wearing skin is unheard of.
watsit said:
Not sure what you're getting at with that rhetorical question. As I said in your link, skin does have a particular texture and look to it, just as fur and scales and metal have particular textures and looks to them. <color>_body is the catch all that covers the various materials a body can be made of, including latex or skin, and is used as a generic fallback when you can't tell what specific material it is.Would it be clearer if, when I say "skin", I'm talking about "human skin" or "human-like skin"? The actual material the body is made of.
...
Skin is more than just a "smooth texture". Skin is quite porous when you look at it in detail, also allowing some color from underneath or within to "bleed" through in places (spots of red or pink, veins, etc). It can be rough and hairy or smooth and hairless (or rough and hairless or smooth and hairy). That skin is often portrayed as smooth/flat and hairless due to lack of detail (or style preferences) I don't think is enough justification to assume a character's body is skin by default (especially, again, when it's not the expectation for things here to have, so flooding it on ambiguous body materials would make finding "real" skin that much more difficult).
It's pretty hard to define "human-like skin" into taggable terms, no? Even for post #5248800, you were wary of tagging it as skin, even though it looks perfectly like human skin to me.
The point I'm making is that most artists aren't going to go to that level of detail (i.e., making sure it has a realistically skin-like texture that reflects the light just right) when drawing characters with "skin".
They will just resort to flat_colors with minimal lightning when colouring in characters with skin.
As it currently stands, skin is simply defined as "a smooth texture" while keeping it distinct from fur, feathers, etc.
Unless you want to follow the real technical definition of skin, i.e., "outermost or second outermost layer of tissue in animals", which is too ambiguous to even help in tagging.
latex_fur can also have a smooth texture:
post #4589008
Looks like both latex_skin (arms and legs) and latex_fur (the "skirt") to me since they are two distinct parts.
If their body was entirely smooth throughout but had frayed ends at the edges, then I'd tag it as latex_fur only.
post #5838142
That's not what I'm saying. A "type of skin" doesn't make sense here because "skin" in this context means a particular type of body material, not something that is itself made of some type of material.
Yes, because of the implication to <color>_body, like I said. But it is still fur. Similarly, if some body material is "latex skin", which is skin, then that same material used as clothing would skill be skin. It's not like the idea of wearing skin is unheard of.
Does it even matter TWYS-wise on the material the skin is made of?
Even if the character is made entirely of smooth synthetic material (e.g., living_pool_toy) or rubber (e.g., michelin_man), I'd still tag it as skin since (definition-wise) we don't go to that level of distinguishing it with realistic human-like skin.
thegreatwolfgang said:
It's pretty hard to define "human-like skin" into taggable terms, no? Even for post #5248800, you were wary of tagging it as skin, even though it looks perfectly like human skin to me.
To me, it only looks like skin because of its color being typical of human skin and that it's on a human. Assuming those humans have skin is no different to me than assuming that horse has fur.
thegreatwolfgang said:
The point I'm making is that most artists aren't going to go to that level of detail (i.e., making sure it has a realistically skin-like texture that reflects the light just right) when drawing characters with "skin".
They will just resort to flat_colors with minimal lightning when colouring in characters with skin.
Same thing happens with fur, scales, and anything else, most artists aren't going to go into a significant amount of detail. If we can't assume fur from a lack of detail, why should we assume skin from a lack of detail?
thegreatwolfgang said:
As it currently stands, skin is simply defined as "a smooth texture" while keeping it distinct from fur, feathers, etc.
Except fur and feathers can also be smooth, it's not a unique property of skin. Skin can actually be quite rough sometimes; some people just have rougher skin than others, it tends to get more rough and wrinkly the older you get, and goosebumps will make for rough skin.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Looks like both latex_skin (arms and legs) and latex_fur (the "skirt") to me since they are two distinct parts.
The point is that the "latex fur" looks just as smooth as the "latex skin". So it can't be smoothness that determines whether some latex body is "skin" or not.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Does it even matter TWYS-wise on the material the skin is made of?
I don't know how to respond to this, since again, what "material the skin of made of" doesn't make sense here. Skin is made of skin, like fur is made of fur, and latex is made of latex.
