Tag Implication: bikini_armor -> armor

Anelaid said:
I can't think of any examples to bring up right now, but it would be difficult to judge since ornamental armors were easy to distinguish since they were, well, ornate and not designed to be practical. That applies to practically every fantasy armor so I wouldn't know how we could create a system, or really why we would bother, to distinguish between ornamental, or dress armors, and regular fantasy armor.

This might be easy and sensible in real life, but makes no sense for tagging purposes.

Anelaid said:
(snipped)

Well, perhaps it's best to cross that bridge when we come to it, then.

A problem with distinguishing such ornamental-only types of armor is that, in works of fantasy that feature them, they just as often get treated as practical and usable pieces, rather than just for show. This is true of a variety of fantasy works, from the ridiculously-ornate armors of Warhammer 40,000 to the increasingly-ornamental weapons and armor of the Dynasty Warriors/Sangoku Musou games.

At what point is it just for show?

If it were to have any value as a tag, it could distinguished between practical armor designs and the ornate ones used in those stories.

I'd imagine that ornate armor is something people would look for so I can see its use for a tag in that sense but not how it would be used in real-life to describe armor.

Perhaps it's best to simplify. Chop the tag down to ornate, and apply it when weapons, armor, etc. are given significantly more aesthetic workmanship than is practical.

Again, how do you distinguish between fantasy armour and fantasy ornate armour? Imagining what people would look for is of little use if the concept doesn't exist in practical terms.

葉月 said:
Again, how do you distinguish between fantasy armour and fantasy ornate armour? Imagining what people would look for is of little use if the concept doesn't exist in practical terms.

I'm referring to differentiating between regular, no-frills armor and any type of ornate-design.

The practicality is searching for a more realistic armor compared to the more ornate fantasy ones.

I think that ornate is a usable tag, since it describes something objective. Whether or not the ornate object in question is practical in the fiction of the image is immaterial.

That makes sense.

Designs that are "just for show" practically swarm the armor tag, so it's better to start a "Practical Armor" pool to collect those rare real armor.

Similar to how we don't tag female but male instead.

Yep, it sounds much more sensible. Like realistic, but for armour.

I agree that the debate is not over whether bikini armor is armor, but over what should be classified as bikini armor, given that connection.

And that's external to the implication, so, done.

I've created the wiki entry for ornate, but I'm not satisfied, and would like additional input on improving it.

What I have so far:

When any piece of equipment is elaborately and excessively ornamented. At a single glance, it should be plainly apparent that the item is made for aesthetic purposes, above and beyond what could normally be called "practical".

Note that this tag does not necessitate (or imply) that the item in question is useless for practical applications; it simply must give off the impression that it would be so.

I fixed up the wiki to make it a bit more clear since the idea is that it includes items who are purely ornamental (like a mantelpiece), ornate practical items, and fantasy items.

Yes, that's much more like what I had in mind. Good job.