Topic: Tag Alias: covered_eyes -> eyes_covered

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Aliasing covered_eyes → eyes_covered
Link to alias

Reason:

They have the same meaning. Both are used interchangeably; they should be merged.

At first, I recommended that "covered_eyes" be the official tag, since this would've followed the existing "[trait]_eyes" pattern (established by "[color]_eyes", et al). But that seems silly in retrospect. I now realize that the word "covered" should be treated as a verb in this case, not turned into an adjective. This would honor the example of the massive main tags "eyes_closed", "one_eye_closed", etc.

Yet... by that logic, shouldn't "hidden_eyes" be changed to "eyes_hidden" (which is currently unused), etc? That seems like a good idea to me... but I don't know.

In any case, these two "covered eyes" tags should be merged into one.

EDIT: The tag alias eyes_covered -> covered_eyes (forum #272990) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

Updated by auto moderator

I say covered_eyes because "eyes_covered" is Passive in tone, whereas most tags on this site follow an Active tone.

Updated by anonymous

So far we have the following tags and posts:
covered_eyes 241
eyes_covered 301
eyes_obscured 19
eyes_hidden 64
hidden_eyes 213
obstructed eyes 10
obscured_eyes 246

Forum topic #28152 and topic #27914 made it clear that and obscured is different from obstructed or hidden. I agree, because when someone's eyes are obscured, they can still see, it's just the viewer that can't see their eyes. It's like wearing a tilted baseball cap.
Therefore, I vote against the use of the hidden tags, because they can be subjective.
Alias eyes_obscured -> obscured_eyes
Alias the other tags to eyes_covered.

  • 1