The tag alias #76890 missing_eyes -> missing_eye is pending approval.

Reason: Plural -> singular. Also a handful are characters who are only missing one eye.

Following a discussion on discord, I came accross a post with a "one eyed" character. There is no "one_eyed" tag, but there is "missing_eye" tag. I talked with regsmutt and we came across an issue : Assuming i'm okay with a character with two eyes missing one but not with characters missing both eyes, as it implies they are blind. Is this use case common among you fellow e6 members enough to deserve a distinction ? And in this case, there is the whole fuss about characters that don't have two eyes. If I'm looking for "one_eyed" characters, and I came across a cyclop, is this "one_eyed" ? or is a bli nd cyclop "one_eyed" ? the list of issues goes on.
As for why I hijacked this thead is, if someone is okay with "one_eyed" character but not characters having two eyes and are missing the two eyes, if this is common use case, we should not alias "missing_eyes" (as "blind) to "missing_eye" (as "one eyed").

vincent456 said:
Following a discussion on discord, I came accross a post with a "one eyed" character. There is no "one_eyed" tag, but there is "missing_eye" tag. I talked with regsmutt and we came across an issue : Assuming i'm okay with a character with two eyes missing one but not with characters missing both eyes, as it implies they are blind. Is this use case common among you fellow e6 members enough to deserve a distinction ? And in this case, there is the whole fuss about characters that don't have two eyes. If I'm looking for "one_eyed" characters, and I came across a cyclop, is this "one_eyed" ? or is a bli nd cyclop "one_eyed" ? the list of issues goes on.
As for why I hijacked this thead is, if someone is okay with "one_eyed" character but not characters having two eyes and are missing the two eyes, if this is common use case, we should not alias "missing_eyes" (as "blind) to "missing_eye" (as "one eyed").

To kinda repeat what I said in discord-

A character can be missing multiple eyes without missing all of them:
post #4122538
Also a character with 1_eye would be missing all of them with only one removed.

There is currently a tag for eyeless, however since it covers characters that never had eyes, making a tag for missing_all_eyes might be useful. It would distinguish between characters that are naturally eyeless from those who are eyeless due to removal.

I agree that "missing_eye" and "missing_eyes" are too close. If I would look for "one_eyed" characters, if I look for "missing_eye" and accidently type "missing_eyes", I would drown in an abyss of blind characters, which is the last thing i would want to come across. So In the end I guess we both agree : we should imply "missing_eyes" with "missing_eye" but we need something equivalent to my definition of "one_eyed" which can maybe achieve with something like "missing_all_eyes"

Where does eye_socket fit in this? I feel like there is a significant amount of overlap.

ruppari said:
Where does eye_socket fit in this? I feel like there is a significant amount of overlap.

I feel like it generally implies a missing eye, but it's far from universal. You have characters with eye lights (is there a tag for this?) in otherwise empty sockets:
post #4569988

There's also empty_eye_sockets which appears to be used identically. These should probably be aliased together.