The full_armor tag explicitly states there needs to be covering for the body, arms, legs, AND head. Despite this, people keep adding the tag for pictures where none of the characters are actually covering their head.

Because drawing a character's face is generally very important in illustration, it's quite common for them to have an uncovered head even when they logically should be wearing a helmet, even when they are otherwise fully decked out in armor. It happens so frequently that it deserves its own tag.

On a related note, people REALLY misuse the helm tag: it refers to a single piece helmet that covers the entire head, yet people often include helmets with hinged faceplates or no face coverage at all. Just looking at the 20 images on the first page, at least 11 of them are wrong, and some of the others are debatable.

helm should probably be moved to full_helmet or something similar so it's obvious what it is as well as a cleanup.

no helmet should cover this.

Does helmet really need to be a part of full_armor when you can search for both? Because you're right, it's really common to leave helmets out to show off faces: so much so that it should be the main tag. People tend to tag headgear reliably anyway, even if they're apparently using the wrong ones sometimes.

Rampardos said:
Does helmet really need to be a part of full_armor when you can search for both?

By wiki 's definition, yes.

Yeah, that was already made clear. I was asking does it need to be defined that way?

Rampardos said:
Yeah, that was already made clear. I was asking does it need to be defined that way?

Again, I'd say yes.
IMO,the one that needs to be redefined is no helmet tag.

Why would that need to be redefined? It was the definition of that very tag and helmet_removed that made me think that full_armor doesn't need to actually be full_armor anymore.

You're suggesting armor + *helmet search instead of full armor?

There will be appropriate ones like post #1121095.

But then there are these:
post #897575
post #1124862
Not in full armor.

Back to the main question, I'm still with no helmet.

No. My suggestion was that full_armor could be kept just as it is now but without helmets being required.

no_helmet or helmet_removed would work fine but I think you could easily get away with doing full_armor -helmet. hat_removed and no_hat were mostly introduced due to the probability of someone else wearing a hat being in the picture and polluting the search, but helmets aren't nearly as common.

Another possible solution would be adding a 3rd tier to these tags, so there is a middle ground tag covering armor that covers most of the body or more and then a more narrower tag that covers 100% coverage.

Example of how it would be ordered, using full_armor as if it didn't require helmets and just giving a random name to the one that covers completely:

armor <-implicates- full_armor <-implicates- full_set_armor

Full_armor could alternatively be made the narrowest defined covering 100% coverage, with the new tag being the middle one.

The middle category might be useful, in that it could cover armor that almost completely covers the body but perhaps a piece is missing. This could be just the helmet, but it could also be be the armored footwear, gauntlets, upper arm armor, etc.

NWF_Renim said:
The middle category might be useful, in that it could cover armor that almost completely covers the body but perhaps a piece is missing. This could be just the helmet, but it could also be be the armored footwear, gauntlets, upper arm armor, etc.

Hmm...partial armor?

Adding more arbitrary words like "set" doesn't seem like a good idea to me. It'll just cause even more confusion over what each is supposed to mean, and it's already misused enough.

That's the main reason why I think we should be making it simpler and gear it towards what people are inclined to tag and what's bound to appear most often. I don't think other random pieces missing would really require a tag.

But if a middle tag were to exist something like almost_full_armor would be best, I think. It's a straight forward and clear name.

Rampardos said:
Adding more arbitrary words like "set" doesn't seem like a good idea to me. It'll just cause even more confusion over what each is supposed to mean, and it's already misused enough.

You obviously didn't read what I said very well. For the example I just said "just giving a random name to the one that covers completely." I had not intentions in that being the actual name, I was just using something as a place holder to represent whatever the tag would be named if full_armor was the middle tag.

No I did, and I understood that, but a tag called full_armor only being a middle tag when it's called full_armor was also part of the problem. Besides, just because you just threw it out there doesn't mean I can't provide a rationale for why it's definitely not a good avenue, if only so people don't follow it. In any case sorry if I offended you.

dean_exia said:
no helmet should cover this.

no_helmet specifies that the character usually DOES wear a helmet, but there are many characters that never wear helmets with their armor. For instance, Saber and Gilgamesh from Fate/Stay Night both wear armor most of the time, but never helmets.

It also doesn't specific that they're currently wearing other armor. Although that doesn't matter much, I can't think of many characters that wear helmets but not other pieces of armor.

Log said:
helm should probably be moved to full_helmet or something similar so it's obvious what it is as well as a cleanup.

While the tag has a clear definition, the real world meanings of the word are a bit different. Most generally "helm" is just an old word for helmet. What the tag is probably getting the definition from is a specific design of helmet called a "great helm" (it's the kind Solaire from Dark Souls and the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail both wear).

Rampardos said:
No. My suggestion was that full_armor could be kept just as it is now but without helmets being required.

But armor on every part of the body and on every part but the head are distinct enough to deserve separate tags. And if you include helmetless character in the full_armor tag, not only does it make the name inaccurate, there's almost not point in HAVING a full_armor tag. We should keep full_armor as it is.

We should either redefine no_helmet or make a new tag.

And if you don't include the word helmet in the tag, people are a lot less likely to realize helmets are required for a full set of armor, so I don't think almost_full_armor would work.

thatother1dude said:
But armor on every part of the body and on every part but the head are distinct enough to deserve separate tags. And if you include helmetless character in the full_armor tag, not only does it make the name inaccurate, there's almost not point in HAVING a full_armor tag. We should keep full_armor as it is.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of different levels of armor, especially in the kind of art we deal with. There are plenty of characters that wear only certain parts of armor. (post #812929, post #704265, post #684183, post #1123718) full_armor allows us to differentiate from fanservice armor that exposes a lot of skin and real armor that actually looks like it could protect them.

And as I said before, the helmet tag itself keeps armor from head-to-toe and helmetless armor distinct and separate.

Point taken on almost_full_armor, though.

Rampardos said:
And as I said before, the helmet tag itself keeps armor from head-to-toe and helmetless armor distinct and separate.

For the most part, but having to use two tags instead of one for something this distinct is quite annoying for any non-premium member because of the two-tag limit.

All the more incentive for people to upgrade their account; which is the purpose of the limit in the first place. It's never been policy to provide work arounds for basic members.