From what I can tell, no_face and faceless appear to be referring to the same concept. I would say that even though faceless isn't the same as the other no_* tags, tags like faceless_male sound better than Male_with_no_face
Updated by S1eth
Posted under General
From what I can tell, no_face and faceless appear to be referring to the same concept. I would say that even though faceless isn't the same as the other no_* tags, tags like faceless_male sound better than Male_with_no_face
Updated by S1eth
always felt Faceless was when, clearly the character should have a face, but the artist didn't draw it.
While no_face should be used when the artstyle in question calls for the characters not to have a face/have facial features, like with post #877897. given the nature of that artstyle, it would look strange for them to have faces. probably just me.
I get the distinction you're going for, Zekana, but it seems like it would be hard to enforce, since it's so subtle. I'd rather alias. I'm just not sure which to alias to.
I think I prefer no_face because I do want to be consistent with the other no_* tags, but faceless has way more posts and the alias in that direction is less likely to break. We can change it later if there's an outcry.
The no_face tag started being used after forum #53029 to make a distinction between faceless males/females and faceless identifiable characters. It wasn't discussed any further.