Topic: Tag Alias: no_eyes -> invalid_tag

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Eh I don't know, because since we don't tag eyes, and generally a lack of eyes would seem to warrant a tag to me at least.
Like what if the eyes are like sockets?

Updated by anonymous

If the tag is supposed to be used, then feel free to delete this alias.

The reason behind the alias was that I thought anything with no_* shouldn't be used.

Updated by anonymous

...Reason: If there is no eyes, don't tag it.

I think this reason has been taken a little out of context.

We're getting rid of no_sound because we already have sound and you can easily search -sound to get results with no_sound. So it's redundant.

But we don't have eyes tag anymore, so there's no other way to search for creatures with a visible space where an eye should go but no actual eye where you'd expect one. That makes this alias a bad idea. As gilda_the_gryphon explained it well, "Search for -nipples instead. ...No_nipples is not the same category as eyeless, legless, headless, faceless, etc. We don't have eye, leg, head, face and similar tag [to exclude from a search]. We're tagging either presence of something or lack of something. Not both of them. If there was no nipples tag then this tag would be okay, but not when nipples is valid tag."

Some tags for things not being there are actually ok. Like bald (which we combined no_hair into). There's also topless. Or bottomless (which we combined no_panties into). No_nipples was redundant because we have nipples to include or exclude in a search, so we only kept nipples. no_background made no sense so it was dumped into invalid_tag. no_bra was unnecessary so it was nuked. But no_arms was combined with armless; no_legs combined with legless.

So what I'm saying is, I think no_eyes should be aliased to eyeless instead.

Updated by anonymous

furrypickle said:
I think this reason has been taken a little out of context.

I should have written a better reason for it, sorry about that.

The alias of no_eyes → eyeless should be used instead.

Updated by anonymous

Original page: https://e621.net/forum_topics/2005?page=1