Tag Discussion - no_hat

I noticed this tag and was wondering if it seems a bit nonsensical.

post #674239 is the most recent example. It seems to be used where a character who normally wears a hat does not.

I was thinking in a way this goes against tagging what you see vs what you know should be there.

Generally IRL one would say, well they are not wearing a hat in this image. Here I was under the impression you tagged each image as if it was the only one in existence disregarding anything you know about the character in it.

This would apply to no_wings, no_tail etc.

Anyway assuming it is good the way it is, would not hat-less be be more appropriate?

Pyrolight said: Here I was under the impression you tagged each image as if it was the only one in existence disregarding anything you know about the character in it.

Usually, but contrast tags are common and well established. The alternate tags, for example. Also bespectacled, kemonomimi_mode, enmaided etc.

These are totally kosher but we do make an effort to treat them as exceptions, not the norm. That is, it's gotta be something that shows up fairly frequently.

Anyway assuming it is good the way it is, would not hat-less be be more appropriate?

See forum #37815. We decided on no_hat there. hat-less is one of the tags aliased to no_hat. no_hat matches the no tags.

Thanks good to know.