Moto (bike, ski etc) helmets are not generally called "armor". Or are they?
Wiki page definition for armor tag is wide enough to include those, but the tag itself is mostly used for combat armor.

Alias thread: https://e621.net/forum/show/184739

Offending image: post #922567

forum #184739

Furrin_Gok said:

parasprite said:
As long as flight_helmet would be considered armor, I suppose the latter would be fine.

Seems like even the earlier incarnations of the Leather Flying Helmet were still known for providing protection, although it was mostly from their own aircraft. They could absorb a few bashes from falling debris, fire, wind, even weather.

While Fenrick argued that he didn't think a "Motorcycle helmet" should count, it was for the same reasons as the Flight Helmet. However, they are designed to absorb impacts, and sort of count for the purpose of armor, so Parasprite ultimately approved it.

I'm curious how many people disagree with that? Maybe we should have a specific combat_armor or heavy_armor tag?

Furrin_Gok

But nobody ever listens to Fenrick and look where we are now!

Really though, technicalities aside, the real question I think we should ask is whether people who are trying to find pictures including armor will have motorcycle helmets or other similar protective items like flight caps/helmets in mind. In everyday parlance, that stuff is almost always referred to as "gear" or "equipment" or some other generic term. If you want to get really technical, a leather jacket and jeans would be considered armor by the same definition, so clearly a line has to be drawn somewhere.

As it is I feel this just makes images featuring, say, plated mail a bit harder to find.

you mean unimplicate?

anyways because of the hemet -> armor implication, every single different type of helmet except armor helmet needs their own tag now and also it would wrong to tag for example riding helmet or motorcycle helmets as helmet because those are not really armor. those are not what user is looking for when they search for armor. and thats kinda.. helmet would be better off as blanket tag and without armor implication

Mutisija said:
anyways because of the hemet -> armor implication, every single different type of helmet except armor helmet needs their own tag now and also it would wrong to tag for example riding helmet or motorcycle helmets as helmet because those are not really armor.

Both are worn to protect one's head, and therefore are armor. Wikipedia even specifically mentions cycling helmets as armor.

But yes, I'd agree that those probably aren't what the users are looking for when searching for armor.

Do we need some kind of protective_gear tag for cycling helmets and such?

Mutisija said:
you mean unimplicate?

Yes, sure. Whatever it's called.

Genjar said:
Do we need some kind of protective_gear tag for cycling helmets and such?

I'd say just drop the implication, and let the users choose whether it should be "helmet armor" or just "helmet".

E6 is not Wikipedia, so arguing definitions makes no sense imo.
The question should be, does armor tag fit here? Would you tag it armor?

Creating a long abstract pointless tag like protective_gear just to implicate it, because no sane person would type that on their own, well that sounds wrong to me. That's not how tagging is supposed to work.