Colored facial hair tags

BUR #34183 has been rejected.

Per forum #321054. Going to work on adding mismatched facial hair where applicable.

We have colored pubic hair tags, why shouldn't these exist?

They seem like tag bloat. I can't see the statistics (or if I can I have no idea how to) but I'd be surprised if too many people are searching for/against facial hair colors, especially since the majority of the time they're the same color as the hair on their heads. Not to mention black facial hair had some mistags for what is arguably artistically licensed stubble rather than actually black hair.

I believe they are valid tags especially since we have colored pubes tags which could similarly be see as bloat given we have mismatched pubic hair. Regardless removing tags people are voting on is not ok stubble also implicates facial hair so at the moment those aren't incorrect.

I can see the tags being useful in cases of mismatched facial hair or when the character doesn't have any hair on the head at all/not visible, in other cases it feels like padding.

At the very least if they're not nuked they should imply facial hair.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

The bulk update request #34183 (forum #321064) has been rejected by @evazion.

These tags are fine for now. Maybe if someone starts tagging ordinary beard colors on thousands of posts and it turns out nobody cares about that, we can revisit this.

Ylimegirl said:

They seem like tag bloat. I can't see the statistics (or if I can I have no idea how to) but I'd be surprised if too many people are searching for/against facial hair colors, especially since the majority of the time they're the same color as the hair on their heads. Not to mention black facial hair had some mistags for what is arguably artistically licensed stubble rather than actually black hair.

These tags currently get zero searches, but that's expected because they're so small. Facial hair itself only gets around 300 searches per week. In comparison pubic hair gets 20k searches per week. But individual pubic hair colors only get 100 or so. Once again the value of color tags is greatly overestimated.

BUR #38834 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication black_facial_hair -> facial_hair
create implication blonde_facial_hair -> facial_hair
create implication blue_facial_hair -> facial_hair
create implication brown_facial_hair -> facial_hair
create implication green_facial_hair -> facial_hair
create implication grey_facial_hair -> facial_hair
create implication pink_facial_hair -> facial_hair
create implication purple_facial_hair -> facial_hair
create implication red_facial_hair -> facial_hair
create implication white_facial_hair -> facial_hair

Ylimegirl said:

At the very least if they're not nuked they should imply facial hair.

Orange facial hair is currently too small to imply.

BUR #38835 has been rejected.

create implication black_facial_hair -> black_hair
create implication blonde_facial_hair -> blonde_hair
create implication green_facial_hair -> green_hair
create implication grey_facial_hair -> grey_hair
create implication purple_facial_hair -> purple_hair
create implication red_facial_hair -> red_hair
create implication white_facial_hair -> white_hair

Part 2 for the tags that are big enough. Splitting because I imagine this implication could run into problems/discussion adjacent to topic #30410.

BUR #38837 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication soul_patch -> facial_hair
create implication mutton_chops -> facial_hair
create implication chinstrap_beard -> beard
create implication connected_beard -> beard
remove implication fu_manchu_(mustache) -> mustache

Other implications while I'm at it. Removing the one for Fu Manchu (mustache) because it already implies long mustache which itself implies mustache. Ignoring sideburns because we currently have posts like post #9003555, which feels like a mistag but there's also long sideburns and I'm not sure what the difference is and I just woke up

eta: changed implication from chinstrap_beard -> facial_hair to chinstrap_beard -> beard

Ylimegirl said:

Ignoring sideburns because we currently have posts like post #9003555, which feels like a mistag but there's also long sideburns and I'm not sure what the difference is and I just woke up

I would not consider sideburns to be facial hair, but post #9003555 isn't a mistag it's the patch in front of his ear, post #8843243 shows it off better with the same character.

Long Sideburns should ideally be for characters like Trafalgar Law post #7585914, or Arsene Lupin III post #8019863 where it reach far down the cheek and is almost level with the mouth.

zetsubousensei said:

I would not consider sideburns to be facial hair, but post #9003555 isn't a mistag it's the patch in front of his ear, post #8843243 shows it off better with the same character.

See I wouldn't consider that amount of hair sideburns, that's just a little bit of hair in front of the ear. I feel like the hair should at least go down to the earlobe for it to be sideburns, but maybe that's just me. Like, that's an area of the head that even people who don't naturally grow beards can have hair grow out from (source: just touched my cheek). Long sideburns on the other hand are more unambiguously facial hair, I imagine.

Ylimegirl said:

See I wouldn't consider that amount of hair sideburns, that's just a little bit of hair in front of the ear. I feel like the hair should at least go down to the earlobe for it to be sideburns, but maybe that's just me. Like, that's an area of the head that even people who don't naturally grow beards can have hair grow out from (source: just touched my cheek). Long sideburns on the other hand are more unambiguously facial hair, I imagine.

It's not a feature you're likely to find on women (though not strictly impossible) and even with a search of short_hair + male_focus there are plenty of pictures that don't depict the feature, post #9016539, so I think it has value. I'm not a man so I'm not going to comment on it's universality, but it's at the very least something that can't be replicated without the tag searching-wise.

The bulk update request #38834 (forum #342179) has been approved by @nonamethanks.

Ylimegirl said:

BUR #38837 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication soul_patch -> facial_hair
create implication mutton_chops -> facial_hair
create implication chinstrap_beard -> beard
create implication connected_beard -> beard
remove implication fu_manchu_(mustache) -> mustache

Other implications while I'm at it. Removing the one for Fu Manchu (mustache) because it already implies long mustache which itself implies mustache. Ignoring sideburns because we currently have posts like post #9003555, which feels like a mistag but there's also long sideburns and I'm not sure what the difference is and I just woke up

Why is chinstrap beard not implying beard and going straight to facial hair instead?

nonamethanks said:

Why is chinstrap beard not implying beard and going straight to facial hair instead?

I think I was just worried about getting it wrong somehow. Edited.

Just discovered by chance that there's also short sideburns. So we should probably figure this out. In order of decreasing population we have

• sideburns (31k)
• long sideburns (12k)
• medium sideburns (932)
• short sideburns (38)
• curly sideburns (6)

IMO: Short sideburns should not imply facial hair, since it's just like... a littol bit in there. Long can definitely be safely implied to facial hair. I would say medium as well but that might be more debatable.

At a glance it looks like most sideburns without the individual length tags (sideburns -*_sideburns) fall into the category of medium sideburns, which could probably be considered the "default" and the two tags could probably be merged, with long & short sideburns being the outliers with individual tags. I'm not sure if curly sideburns needs to exist at all.

Mutton chops are by definition long sideburns, so maybe that should be where the implication points to instead.

The bulk update request #38837 (forum #342185) has been approved by @nonamethanks.