Implicating albino → red_eyes
Link to implication
Reason:
Albinism results in the subject having red eyes.
Updated by crowshow
Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
Implicating albino → red_eyes
Link to implication
Albinism results in the subject having red eyes.
Updated by crowshow
kamimatsu said:
Implicating albino → red_eyes
Link to implicationReason:
Albinism results in the subject having red eyes.
What about when an albino has their eyes closed, or their eyes are otherwise not visible?
Updated by anonymous
Wouldn't TWYS just result in close eyes or greyscale not being tagged albino?
As for the other eyes, thanks. I didn't know that. That would be a good reason not to do this.
Updated by anonymous
kamimatsu said:
Wouldn't TWYS just result in close eyes or greyscale not being tagged albino?
post #1092981post #632591post #432213
How many people actually tag albino? Every time I see something white, I tag it as white.
Updated by anonymous
kamimatsu said:
Wouldn't TWYS just result in close eyes or greyscale not being tagged albino?
eyes are not only clue for someone being albino. for example you can tell pretty easily that this person is albino even tho you cannot see their eyes
Updated by anonymous
While the second and third are tagged under TWYK, I can see where you're going with the first.
Mutisija said:
eyes are not only clue for someone being albino. for example you can tell pretty easily that this person is albino even tho you cannot see their eyes
Good point. They won't all be covered in fur. I guess you got me.
I'm guessing that's a "no" on the implication.
Updated by anonymous
Updated by anonymous
hslugs said:
Technically the part that should be red is the pupil, often with blue or blue-ish iris.Also that implication should be the other way around, if anything.
White fur + red pupils + no other dark pigments -> probably albino.
Red pupils can be the result of the Red-eye effect.
Updated by anonymous
Denied for the reasons stated above.
Updated by anonymous