Tag discussion: orange vs. orange, color vs. fruit

The orange tag is being used for dual purpose. It is used to specify pictures that are very orange and pictures that contain an orange. We should differentiate between the two if possible.

- Color
post #109608 post #405994 post #63772

- Fruit
post #277048 post #365095

- Both
post #109739

There seems to be more pictures tagged with orange for the fruit than the color. However, we have other color tags, e.g. blue, purple, red, etc.

Possible solutions
1. Make the orange tag mean the color. Introduce an orange_(fruit) or orange_(food) tag.

2. Make the orange tag mean the fruit. Introduce an orange_(color) tag.

Any others?

I'd say make orange refer to the fruit. There's bound to be more pictures featuring oranges than pictures that are primarily orange in color.

I don't even know where these other tags come from so I would say colors come last in priority.

Log said:
I don't even know where these other tags come from

I don't know who started it either, but I find the color tags to be pretty useful, specifically for finding monochrome images that aren't the standard grayscale.

I'm not sure if it's just me being really tired or something, but these color tags look extremely stupid.

Come on, these tags are going all over the place and it's like they don't even know what the hell they're trying to tag.

Use them if an image that have a dominate color, but this can refer to the background or the character's clothing? Ok, so that means an image like post #252181 shouldn't just be red, it should be white because the character's clothing is predominately one color.

Ok, maybe if the background is predominately one color... so post #257190 because it's all black it's got the black tag... but wait? Her clothing is all white, shouldn't this also be tagged white? Wait, or do we include the blanket that's all brown, maybe it should be tagged brown too. Well maybe that's a bad example. Ok, post #255517 all the clothing is black, so the black tag...but the background is all white. Shouldn't this get the white tag? But the clothing doesn't even cover most of her body, so maybe I should tag this skin color.

At least tighten the definition. I know you want to tag things like post #418504, but there has got to be a better tag to cover the concept than simply just a color's name. Also I don't think we should be tagging just the clothing, especially if it doesn't cover most of the body.

I would prefer orange (fruit) for the fruit, and orange for the color.

As for whether we even want blanket tags for colors, I would say yes, absolutely. Again, it's really based on search perception, not a particular formula. Who wants to try their hand at defining happy objectively, for example? I see color tags as inherently subjective. That doesn't mean they're bad, though. If one person subjectively feels that an image has a "blue vibe", then probably a large segment of the viewer base will as well, which is a good enough reason for me to approve of including that image in the search results for blue. And I certainly don't see any good reason to get rid of the tag. Of course, care must be taken in its application, and if you're feeling wise, you're welcome to remove color tags from posts that have them but, in your opinion, shouldn't.

white looks completely messed up. I'd use orange for the fruit.

I assume that which ever result we end with would end up favoring/benefitting the majority.

Color tags alone seem a little ambiguous. Of course, most of us know that by seeing a "blue" or "purple" tag, it means the majority of that image contains that color. But what if it's exactly half and half? What if its equally 3 broad colors? What if its multiple concepts of character in the same but different colored clothing. What if its a blue girl with blue clothing in a non-blue envionment/background. What if its a white girl with blue hair, blue bikini, blue eyes, and blue shoes? An image like that is something that I would want to be labeled, because I'm picturing a really hot girl in a matching outfit, but is going to that extent too much work.

I found through my searches, that images tagged with various fruits outweigh images tag with colors. Watermelon, apple, strawberry, and cherry significantly outnumber nearly all the color tags on the site. If we make "blanket tag change" I think it should affect the least images possible. I say keep "orange" for the fruit and change the tag for color (as well as any color) as Orange(color) or "color"(scheme)" I.e. blue(scheme), red(scheme), etc. To denote that the image has that specific color scheme

Use orange for the fruit.

If we want to tag images with overwhelmingly dominant colors (oh god, if we decide to do this, please please be conservative about it or it'll be nightmarish) then we should use a system of defined qualifiers with the color words. Whether that's _(color) or, preferably, something more specific.

But putting that aside, orange = fruit.

NWF_Renim said:
I'm not sure if it's just me being really tired or something, but these color tags look extremely stupid.
...
At least tighten the definition.
...

I agree the definition could possibly use some work. I'm wondering if a better definition would actually be even shorter. Instead of

Image where white is the dominant color. Includes monochrome images in white, and images where the subject is dressed primarily or entirely in white clothes.

maybe just

Image where white is the dominant color.

The one reason I'd be against making orange refer to the fruit is that it would be the exception amongst the other color tags.

jxh2154 said:
Use orange for the fruit.

If we want to tag images with overwhelmingly dominant colors (oh god, if we decide to do this, please please be conservative about it or it'll be nightmarish) then we should use a system of defined qualifiers with the color words. Whether that's _(color) or, preferably, something more specific.

But putting that aside, orange = fruit.

Of course, if we convert all the colors to blah_(color) then that inconsistency goes away. On the other hand, would we be aliasing the other colors to asdf_(color)? For example, purple->purple_(color)

In that case, the inconsistency would come back. orange would be the only one not aliased to orange_(color).

john1980 said: Of course, if we convert all the colors to blah_(color) then that inconsistency goes away. On the other hand, would we be aliasing the other colors to asdf_(color)? For example, purple->purple_(color)

We'd just mass edit, no alias, and people would get used to it.

john1980 said:
I agree the definition could possibly use some work. I'm wondering if a better definition would actually be even shorter. Instead of

maybe just

Not true. Black is the dominant color because no white drawing would be a drawing if it wasn't for the BLACK lines that made it. :P Or we can just agree on grey (pencil, graphite)

This was never settled on it seems.