Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
Implicating armor → clothing
Link to implication
armor is a type of clothing, that is worn to cover the surface and in most cases protect the body or certain body parts.
Related forum #237224
Also i propose a separation between body armor and armor of inanimate objects or surfaces concurrently.
EDIT: The tag implication armor -> clothing (forum #237555) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.
Updated by auto moderator
If this is accepted, armor -clothing won't work anymore.
Updated by anonymous
+1. I admit that am a bit apprehensive, but it seems the best option.
I) Like common clothing, armor is created to be worn and cover body very similarly to how it does.
II) Any piece of armor is basically a garment made of a specific material to be more resistance against physical damage; that include materials as such thick fabric, leather or metallic mesh, which make armor resembe "common clothes" even more.
III) Regarding to how we actually use the 'clothed' tag and its variants, armor would be included; and if an armored character can be considered clothed, considering armor as type of clothing seems appropriate.
IV) Even if we separate clothed and armored, what would we do about tags like 'topless', 'bottomless' and ' mostly_nude'?
Updated by anonymous
My post may or may not describe what the quoted text attempted to. I don't know. Instructions unclear. Donned cock_armor and inserted penis in fan.
Ruku said:
Also i propose a separation between body armor and armor of inanimate objects or surfaces concurrently.
There's a potential issue where natural_armor gets tagged simply as armor because natural_armor is an unused tagging idea, ignoring the tag's two current posts. Natural_armor would be anything that grows on a creature and should not easily be removed (although artists invariably interpret official art that way; see: lucario's "shorts"). Obviously, this kind of armor is not clothing.
pokemon armor has some quick examples of natural armor tagged as armor, such as:
post #1167080 post #1273753 post #1264565
Or go for the jugular, samurott armor:
post #1248007 post #934123 post #750272 post #394274
The armor is not always removable, or ambiguously so. what do?
post #1075082 post #974604 post #1043106
What if only one piece of a character's armor kinda-sorta looks like it could be removed? What's the contingency to prevent mistags of that?
What's more, there's a very real distinction between defensive and offensive natural armor. For instance, a shell is defensive natural armor but put a spike on the shell and it suddenly becomes offensive natural armor. In the real world, natural armor is supposed to, at minimum, discourage predators by making a plant or animal appear difficult or dangerous to eat.
All of this came to mind when I suggested naturally growing spikes should be tagged spines and researched the matter further. (FWIW, online resources are lacking in detailing and cataloguing spines and other natural armors.) I realized we don't tag for natural_armor but could probably tag 100000 posts with it (check every scalie post and guess if they're drawn with plate-thickness scales). Strictly speaking, the natural_armor tag idea seems much more like bloat than anything useful beyond tagging all the things--about as useful as the shiny tag currently is (i.e., not one bit). Seemed like a clusterfuck of an issue not worth raising, but it's an inconsistency that should be resolved before implying armor to clothing.
Tangential: Helmet implies armor. Bicycle_helmet (undertagged) gets tagged as helmet. Bicycle helmets become armor via helmet's implication. They are modern armor, sure, but I doubt that's what someone who searches armor is looking for.
"armor"
Updated by anonymous
abadbird said:
Tangential: Helmet implies armor. Bicycle_helmet (undertagged) gets tagged as helmet. Bicycle helmets become armor via helmet's implication. They are modern armor, sure, but I doubt that's what someone who searches armor is looking for."armor"
There was talk before about creating some sort of "protective gear" tag for sports pads and armor that isn't typically considered armor (motorcycle helmets, bulletproof vests, etc.) but nothing came of it.
Updated by anonymous
abadbird said:
My post may or may not describe what the quoted text attempted to. I don't know. Instructions unclear. Donned cock_armor and inserted penis in fan.
There's a potential issue where natural_armor gets tagged simply as armor because natural_armor is an unused tagging idea, ignoring the tag's two current posts. Natural_armor would be anything that grows on a creature and should not easily be removed (although artists invariably interpret official art that way; see: lucario's "shorts"). Obviously, this kind of armor is not clothing.
pokemon armor has some quick examples of natural armor tagged as armor, such as:
post #1167080 post #1273753 post #1264565
Or go for the jugular, samurott armor:
post #1248007 post #934123 post #750272 post #394274
The armor is not always removable, or ambiguously so. what do?
post #1075082 post #974604 post #1043106
What if only one piece of a character's armor kinda-sorta looks like it could be removed? What's the contingency to prevent mistags of that?
What's more, there's a very real distinction between defensive and offensive natural armor. For instance, a shell is defensive natural armor but put a spike on the shell and it suddenly becomes offensive natural armor. In the real world, natural armor is supposed to, at minimum, discourage predators by making a plant or animal appear difficult or dangerous to eat.
I) There are tags like 'plates', 'pseudo_clothing' and 'exoskeleton' that pretty much cover all of your examples.
II) That is nothing new, we already have this issue with people tagging pseudo clothing as clothing.
III) Actually, isn't relevant if the armor is used defensively or offensively.
Updated by anonymous
Many things fall through the cracks of this kind of broad stroke approach, and you missed half of my point. If you guys implement the implication right away, a bunch of posts are going to be tagged clothing that shouldn't be. Armor has ~22K posts. Let's say 300+ of them shouldn't be tagged clothing. Implications should be made to work before approval so that they create no new mistags once approved and going forward, or at least that's what years of lurking has told me.
O16 said:
I) There are tags like 'plates', 'pseudo_clothing' and 'exoskeleton' that pretty much cover all of your examples.
Doesn't mean anything if it's not standardized and then actually tagged.
Exoskeleton needs a wiki, first. It's a suitably broad term, but we'd still need lists of what does and doesn't qualify for the tag. And then, should those identifiers, like chitin, be ubiquitously tagged too? All of that is undertagged in the extreme, very likely because those tags are superfluous and their particulars are uncommon knowledge.
Some variant tag of mechanized_exoskeleton could take the place of armor on the various furry-ish machines. There's still instances of machine armor that are IMO too much of a stretch to call an exoskeleton, like transformers, which just have armor, not an exoskeleton and not clothing.
Plates doesn't have a wiki either, should probably be aliased to plate anyway, and needs to be separated from the dish and whatever else regardless. Too inclusive as just "plates" and then probably too exclusive as a more specific term.
Pseudo_clothing should be tagged irrespective of any natural armor tag being brought into usage. It would be used in concert with a chunk of the natural armors and leave another chunk unaccounted for. Also, pseudo_clothing only conveys the "natural" half of "natural_armor" but says nothing of armor, which means it's entirely off-topic.
Only saying "[these tags exist]" is putting a lampshade on all these issues and walking away. Those tags are far from perfect and leave ground to cover.
III) Actually, isn't relevant if the armor is used defensively or offensively.
It matters a lot when people primarily associate armor with defense and need to be reminded that [spiky protrusions] are often a kind of armor too.
Still armor, but no one would tag them as such at present. Every Lucario chest spike should earn the armor tag, and yet I can imagine that causing some rippling hissy fits.
Updated by anonymous
abadbird said:
Many things fall through the cracks of this kind of broad stroke approach, and you missed half of my point. If you guys implement the implication right away, a bunch of posts are going to be tagged clothing that shouldn't be. Armor has ~22K posts. Let's say 300+ of them shouldn't be tagged clothing. Implications should be made to work before approval so that they create no new mistags once approved and going forward, or at least that's what years of lurking has told me.
The final decision won't be made "right away" (actually these suggestions tend to wait for a long while). Those mistags you mentioned should be fixed before an implication could be made.
abadbird said:
Doesn't mean anything if it's not standardized and then actually tagged.Exoskeleton needs a wiki, first. It's a suitably broad term, but we'd still need lists of what does and doesn't qualify for the tag. And then, should those identifiers, like chitin, be ubiquitously tagged too? All of that is undertagged in the extreme, very likely because those tags are superfluous and their particulars are uncommon knowledge.
I intend to create the referred wiki by miself, not now but in a near future.
abadbird said:
Some variant tag of mechanized_exoskeleton could take the place of armor on the various furry-ish machines. There's still instances of machine armor that are IMO too much of a stretch to call an exoskeleton, like transformers, which just have armor, not an exoskeleton and not clothing.
Exoskeleton commonly has all the functions of a skeleton: sustention and protection; however it could be associated with other forms of sustention (internal skeleton) and work mostly for protection, then fitting in the case you mentioned.
abadbird said:
Plates doesn't have a wiki either, should probably be aliased to plate anyway, and needs to be separated from the dish and whatever else regardless. Too inclusive as just "plates" and then probably too exclusive as a more specific term.
No it shouldn't, probably should be either disambiguated or have a wiki clarify it's usage. I also have some plans for that, but am a bit busy right now.
abadbird said:
Pseudo_clothing should be tagged irrespective of any natural armor tag being brought into usage. It would be used in concert with a chunk of the natural armors and leave another chunk unaccounted for. Also, pseudo_clothing only conveys the "natural" half of "natural_armor" but says nothing of armor, which means it's entirely off-topic.
I) never said it would cover all the cases of "natural armor", the conjunct of tags I mentioned would (when properly adjusted,of course).
II) This thread is intended for discuss the implication armor → clothing; you brought up arguments about natural armor, so 'pseudo_clothing' logically is within this topic.
abadbird said:
Only saying "[these tags exist]" is putting a lampshade on all these issues and walking away. Those tags are far from perfect and leave ground to cover.
You are right, we are here to discuss and fix things like those, I was merely trying to be brief in my first arguments.
abadbird said:
It matters a lot when people primarily associate armor with defense and need to be reminded that [spiky protrusions] are often a kind of armor too.Still armor, but no one would tag them as such at present. Every Lucario chest spike should earn the armor tag, and yet I can imagine that causing some rippling hissy fits.
No it shouldn't because 'armor' isn't meant for anatomical structures.
For those cases in specific we have tags such 'spines' and 'spikes' (both well established and used consistently)
Updated by anonymous
The tag implication armor -> clothing (forum #237555) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.
