The tag alias #68401 reptilian_eyes -> slit_pupils is pending approval.

Reason: More open-ended (slit_pupils is broader).

the drawback is that not all reptiles have slit eyes like turtles and few lizards/snakes possess round pupils. i don't think we alias mammal eyes to horizontal pupils because majority of ungulates have horizontal pupils.

snake-girl said:
the drawback is that not all reptiles have slit eyes like turtles and few lizards/snakes possess round pupils. i don't think we alias mammal eyes to horizontal pupils because majority of ungulates have horizontal pupils.

https://i.redd.it/s8dwc98l08q41.jpg

I can't tell by looking what taxonomic group an eye is intended to be from. A slit_pupil could be a cat as much as it could be a dragon. A round pupil could be a wolf or a fish. Someone could draw any character with any pupil shape without intending it to be any of the above. So it makes most sense to tag by shape rather than taxonomy, because we can tell shape just by looking. So mammal_eyes and reptillian_eyes shouldn't exist. You mention ungulates, and goat_eyes is aliased to horizontal_pupils already for example.

I think *most people* when tagging reptillian_eyes will intend that to mean slit pupils, and if they don't, the alias will prompt them to correct that tag when uploading. But maybe it should just alias to invalid instead?

arrow189 said:
https://i.redd.it/s8dwc98l08q41.jpg

I can't tell by looking what taxonomic group an eye is intended to be from. A slit_pupil could be a cat as much as it could be a dragon. A round pupil could be a wolf or a fish. Someone could draw any character with any pupil shape without intending it to be any of the above. So it makes most sense to tag by shape rather than taxonomy, because we can tell shape just by looking. So mammal_eyes and reptillian_eyes shouldn't exist. You mention ungulates, and goat_eyes is aliased to horizontal_pupils already for example.

I think *most people* when tagging reptillian_eyes will intend that to mean slit pupils, and if they don't, the alias will prompt them to correct that tag when uploading. But maybe it should just alias to invalid instead?

i've checked posts tagged reptilian eyes for examination, half of them have round/non-slit pupils.
it definitely should be invalid like the rest of classed eyes.
post #4143590 post #2683789

snake-girl said:
the drawback is that not all reptiles have slit eyes like turtles and few lizards/snakes possess round pupils. i don't think we alias mammal eyes to horizontal pupils because majority of ungulates have horizontal pupils.

While this might be true concerning said species, reptile_eyes is aliased to slit_pupils so reptilian_eyes becomes a bit redundant especially since looking at say turtle I haven't seen a overwhelming amount of pupils being uniquely shaped enough for it to merit a distinction over round pupils.

Since you can just do: reptile -slit_pupils for the same effect.

snake-girl said:
i've checked posts tagged reptilian eyes for examination, half of them have round/non-slit pupils.
it definitely should be invalid like the rest of classed eyes.

I looked into this before making the suggestion and saw majority having slit pupils but I doubled check again reptilian_eyes tag:

Only 1 is a definite round pupil the other two are semi-slit pupil but even then the overwhelming majority (the remaining 11) is slit-pupil.

If people are using the tag to mean slit_pupils, then an alias would make sense regardless of its technical (in)accuracy. Since reptile_eyes is aliased to slit_pupils because of people using it that way, it makes sense for reptilian_eyes to be as well.