Tag implication? white_skin -> pale_skin

Posted under General

Maybe this implication would be a good idea?

create implication white_skin -> pale_skin

I suppose pale_skin can cover a number of tones from somewhat rosy (including post #1107041) to completely white (post #1101844), while white_skin could be for 100% white skin. (I assume we would have no tag whatsoever for the most common Caucasian/Japanese/anime skin.)

P.S.: black_skin and dark_skin are related tags: one is "black" along the lines of #000000 and the other is the realistic dark brown. (so, they are separated from each other as two different skin tones)


Sure. Let's see...

forum #30185

葉月 said:
Actually, "pale" and "completely white" seem like distinct concepts to me. Pale is "lighter than is usual", white means #FFFFFF or close.

Fred1515 said:
That's true, but that difference isn't really reflected in the posts with these tags. A lot of pale_skin posts should have been tagged with white_skin if that was the case.

葉月 said:
White skin would obviously implicate pale skin in this case, so I don't see a big problem. But a lot of the tagged posts are altogether wrong, say post #483414 or post #483378, where it's not so much the case that the skin is white or particularly pale, but rather the posts are only partially coloured. So it's kinda hard to estimate how many posts would fall under pale_skin -white_skin.

I would use the tag white_skin for "partially colored" posts with clearly white skin among other colors such as the two mentioned by 葉月 (and, additionally, post #1095728 and post #154944), so I disagree with 葉月 about not tagging them. And I agree with him/her about white_skin implicating pale_skin.

BCI Temp and Shinjidude have other thoughts:

BCI_Temp said:
The problem I have with pale skin is the lack of good separation from white skin. I was planning on bringing up the mess between these tags in the future, but it seems on topic to do so now.

Shinjidude said:
In that case, I'd alias white skin to pale skin (after it's been cleaned up of course). I don't think there is enough variation in the tones encompassed to warrant splitting them up that way (after all all pure white skins are very pale, and all skins pale enough to warrant pale skin should be very close to white).

Since I do see variation as explained in the first post and elaborated thereafter, as an initial step to clean up the mess, I made sure white_skin has only skin white like milk or snow. (by removing all examples of merely "pale" or "Caucasian" skin from there; and tagging them pale_skin when necessary)

If the implication can be done in the future, then a second step would be searching pale_skin -white_skin for more posts to be tagged white_skin.