Tag Alias: pale_face -> turn_pale

Aliasing pale_face -> turn_pale.

Reason: The two tags are equivalent in concept, and should be one tag.

I'd actually argue that pale face is a more natural name than turn pale, but the latter has far, far more images than the former.

I think I prefer turn_pale over pale_face because the latter looks a bit too close to pale_skin which tends to be a different concept as far as color is concerned.

-1 for the reasons EB suggested.
turn_pale emphasizes the expression change that takes place in an image, regardless of whether that character was pale to begin with or not. pale_face just suggests a lightness of skin in the face region. So the two tags should be kept separate since they refer to different concepts, and the occupants of the former manually edited to the latter.

Perhaps the pale_face tag could be specified to refer to images where the skin on the face is light especially in significant contrast to skin elsewhere on the body (such as in cases of heavy makeup, like Amidala from Star Wars).

Okay, I think EB does have a good point, and I think I'm wrong about switching the names, but I think keeping pale face around as a separate tag with will just cause confusion and accidental mistagging.

(I say this because I tagged several images into it when I found it by searching for *face* tags before finding the more populous turn pale as an alternative.)

Perhaps pale makeup would be better for the concept Anonymous9000 suggests. I doubt we'd see too many instance of someone with facial skin that's naturally lighter than the rest of their body without either strong emotion or makeup.