Currently, the wiki page for cataracts states:

On e621, this refers to the color of the pupils being the the same color as the iris itself, but at the same time defined as a seperate shape than the iris. If there simply appears to be no pupil to start with, use no_pupils instead.

That definition seems much too strict. A cataract can be depicted as a normally colored iris with a white pupil, or as a light-colored circle representing both the iris and the pupil (as in post #3803307, top right), or probably in several other ways.

I think it would make more sense to simply say that the cataract tag is for when a character appears to have a cataract.

Does anyone have a different opinion?

secondcountable said:
Currently, the wiki page for cataracts states:

On e621, this refers to the color of the pupils being the the same color as the iris itself, but at the same time defined as a separate shape than the iris. If there simply appears to be no pupil to start with, use no_pupils instead.

That definition seems much too strict. A cataract can be depicted as a normally colored iris with a white pupil, or as a light-colored circle representing both the iris and the pupil (as in post #3803307, top right), or probably in several other ways.

I think it would make more sense to simply say that the cataract tag is for when a character appears to have a cataract.

Does anyone have a different opinion?

I think you have a point. Cataracts can be portrayed in different ways, although a rewrite of the wiki should include different examples as you have done here. Plus, it's certainly possible for a character to have a pupil that's similarly colored to the iris yet still be perfectly capable of sight (an example would be mice).

At least no one is likely to quibble about waterfalls or river rapids. :p