Aliasing one-eyed → 1_eye
Link to alias

Reason:

Basically the same thing except 1_eye is the more used version. Just looking to reduce redundancies.

17 vs. 679 and a wiki page. Might as well.

-1. Modify the cyclops wiki and alias both to it. Cyclops is used to describe real life one-eyed entities (normally a mutation) anyways.

+1. It is logical.

Yep, we're using numbers as the standard now. So plus one to this.

And the cyclops tag might need disambiguation: cyclops are a type of one-eyed humanoids, not anything that has a single eye.

Furrin_Gok said:
-1. Modify the cyclops wiki and alias both to it. Cyclops is used to describe real life one-eyed entities (normally a mutation) anyways.

bad idea

- there is characters that have one eye due losing another
- cyclops is name for specific mythical humanoid creature, not a blanket word for anything with one eye

"Cyclopia" is a real genetic deformation. In artwork, it is typically represented in a much healthier manner, taking after the cyclops of myth.

Mutisija said:
there is characters that have one eye due losing another

Do people tag those ones as 1_eye? In that case, imply cyclops to 1_eye, but we should still use cyclops for when it's actually a singular, centered eye. This would let us use the search 1_eye -cyclops to find images which depict characters fitting that scenario.

Furrin_Gok said:
Do people tag those ones as 1_eye?

Apparently, they do, though they shouldn't in my opinion. Just because one of the eyes doesn't work anymore, that doesn't mean it's no longer there.

Same for characters closing one eye and covering one eye.

BlueDingo said:
Apparently, they do, though they shouldn't in my opinion. Just because one of the eyes doesn't work anymore, that doesn't mean it's no longer there.

i meant like characters actually physically and visibly missing the other eye. that does qualify for 1_eye tag.

BlueDingo said:
Apparently, they do, though they shouldn't in my opinion. Just because one of the eyes doesn't work anymore, that doesn't mean it's no longer there.

Yeah, those shouldn't be tagged as 1_eye.
But seems like we don't actually have a tag for those. Empty_eyes is generally only used when both eyes are like that.

Oh, wait. We do have a blind_eye tag, that works.

Mutisija said:

i meant like characters actually physically and visibly missing the other eye. that does qualify for 1_eye tag.

You mean like this?

post #11800 post #309181

BlueDingo said:
post #11800

Those should be tagged as missing_eye.

Genjar said:
Those should be tagged as missing_eye.

If we aren't even tagging these things, then we alias to cyclops.

How do we handle a case like having four eye sockets, but one eye missing from them? 3_eyes missing_eye?

Furrin_Gok said:
If we aren't even tagging these things, then we alias to cyclops.

How do we handle a case like having four eye sockets, but one eye missing from them? 3_eyes missing_eye?

. Even if every eyeball was missing, the sockets would still be evidence of the creature being a 4-eyed creature so the eye count doesn't change when an eyeball is removed.

A binocular creature with a missing eyeball is still a binocular creature. missing_eye
A binocular creature with a broken eyeball is still a binocular creature. blind_eye

1_eye should only apply to monocular creatures, cyclops being only one of those creatures. This monocular creature is not a cyclops.

BlueDingo said:
4_eyes missing_eye. Even if every eyeball was missing, the sockets would still be evidence of the creature being a 4-eyed creature so the eye count doesn't change when an eyeball is removed.

A binocular creature with a missing eyeball is still a binocular creature. missing_eye
A binocular creature with a broken eyeball is still a binocular creature. blind_eye

1_eye should only apply to monocular creatures, cyclops being only one of those creatures. This monocular creature is not a cyclops.

Personally, I'd say it is. A lot of images that aren't mythological giants have the cyclops tag.

Furrin_Gok said:
A lot of images that aren't mythological giants have the cyclops tag.

So? People frequently tag shoulder rides as piggyback, flat caps as beret and partially colored images as spot_color. Other people repeatedly tagging something incorrectly because they don't know or can't tell the difference is no reason to alias different things together.

Single eye is a generic feature, not a species.
Changing the cyclops species tag into a general tag would be confusing and inconsistent with the other eye count tags.

And it'd also leave us with no species tag for actual cyclops..

BlueDingo said:
[…] partially colored images as spot_color.[…]

Better now?

Genjar said:
Single eye is a generic feature, not a species.
Changing the cyclops species tag into a general tag would be confusing and inconsistent with the other eye count tags.

And it'd also leave us with no species tag for actual cyclops..

And what exactly is the species of Cyclops? "Giants with one centralized eye."
Giant is a relative term, so we can't tag by that, instead we have only the eye, which all of these images have in common.

Approved.

If there are any similar tags which need standardization, let me know.