Posted under General
I had some issues on the definition of one-eyed, characters missing an eye and characters that have one single central eye should not share the same tag. They're visually distinct and different concepts, they shouldn't be lumped together like they are. If one-eyed is going to be used for cycloptic beings, then those missing an eye or wearing an eye-patch should be moved to another tag, whatever that would be named.
My issue is that they're visually different concepts. A cycloptic being's physical form indicates it only ever had a single eye to begin with, the other usage of the tag are beings that had more than one and their physical form is very different. Unless the intention then is that cyclops be used for any being, including non-human beings that only have one single large eye, I don't think a "missing_eye" tag will cut it. Particularly if people actually went and tried adding more under one-eyed eyepatch, where for most of those images there is nothing to really indicate a missing eye and if people fully added such images then you're going to pretty much get the entirety of things like takanashi_rikka eyepatch (since those depictions are no different from one-eyed eyepatch right now).
Updated
Still not fully understanding the objection.
Cyclops: well, your post had the definition - "physical form indicates it only ever had a single eye to begin with... any being, including non-human beings that only have one single large eye"
One-eyed: Broader concept tag for any being with a single eye, whatever the original/normal number.
I think the only question is whether we want to make another subdivision of one-eyed fro beings that usually have more than one but only have one for some reason. We could, but since that's already the large majority of he one-eyed tag I'm not sure it's super important. If cyclops were overwhelming other one-eyed images then it would be important.
He's saying that post #1213312 which falls under one-eyed is visually distinct from post #1344814 which fell under cyclops and it makes no sense to group them together which I agree with.
Yes, I apologize if I wasn't being as coherent as I could be. I do think they're visually distinct things and should be separate.
Another issue I have is what exactly qualifies for one-eyed? There are images where just covering up one eye is enough for someone to tag the image one-eyed (post #1389226, post #1006127). Are we just going by some visual that as long as we see only one eye it qualifies? So pretty much every character with an eyepatch or hair_over_one_eye qualifies then? Are we using meta-knowledge to determine whether a character may qualify? So something like post #710500 which is tagged missing_eye, though visually it is indistinguishable from a wink, qualifies due to meta-knowledge for missing_eye also then qualifies for one-eyed?
On the issue of cyclops (which I'd prefer to keep as humanoids with a single central eye), what should be done with non-humanoid cycloptic/single-eyed beings, like karakasa_obake or Backbeard? Should these be moved to their own catchall tag like "cycloptic_eye," "cyclopean_eye," etc?
Just some other things found under the one-eyed tag:
post #1403314 - Blinded in one eye.
post #1101419 - Lens glare concealing one eye.
post #1000234, post #781305 - Eye not drawn to indicate concealment/shaded.
post #821660 - Hand over eye (eye is actually visible and closed between the fingers).
post #798190 - Wink?
post #684529 - Face only half revealed.
Updated
post #1101419 - Lens glare concealing one eye.
post #1000234, post #781305 - Eye not drawn to indicate concealment/shaded.
post #821660 - Hand over eye (eye is actually visible and closed between the fingers).
post #798190 - Wink?
post #684529 - Face only half revealed.
I would use the term one-eyed to describe a 2-eyed face that had lost an eye, not for when only one of the 2 eyes is visible or when a face "started" with any number of eyes but 2, so those examples shouldn't be tagged one-eyed and neither should cyclops.
Sorry, still simply not agreeing that this requires a separation. If cyclops were being made the parent tag rather than the reverse being true, or if it were a large percentage of the parent tag, the objections would make sense to me.
If you don't want cyclops to be a child tag of it, then one-eyed has to be called something else.
Also an eye being covered by glare or some other visual obstructions isn't one-eyed any more than one arm being behind the back would be one-armed or breasts in profile would be one-breast.
