I was curious about this. Was about to add the tag to the wiki but wanted to clarify this before going through with it.
In general, a lance is an alternative word for spear, but in modern usage, it refers specifically to the style of spear with a large, conic head that is sometimes as long, if not longer, than the actual haft.
Most of the pictures with the lance tag are of this latter, specific kind, but there are a couple pictures which use the tag in reference to traditional spears. Do we think that lance should only refer to the specific kind, just to make things easier on everyone?
Do you want to guess how many poeple actually know the difference between polearms like lances, spears or glaives, and how many of them would be concerned with keeping that consistent in tagging?
I imagine not very many people even really care in any run. In many cases, just saying "spear" or "polearm" is more than sufficient. I had figured that "lance" and "spear", at first glance, evoke two different images for most people, the former applying to the jousting variant. It's less of a specification issue and more "Why bother distinguishing lance and spear in the first place if they'll just apply to the same pictures?".
In the end, though, your point is the clearer one here.
Frankly, I'd think it be best to alias polearms, spears and lances. Maybe not halbreds, even if they are a type of polearm, since those are a bit easier to distinguish, but the other tags are just bound to be confused all the time.
Lance should probably be defined specifically as the conical style of lance. It's visually distinct from the general spear shape and common enough imo to warrant it's own tag.
They can all be made to implicate polearm, so you shouldn't cross out those users who will go that extra step to narrow down their search to an even more specific tag. Lumping them all together will just make it harder for those users who are looking for something more specific. Even if such users might be in the minority, it is rather poor to neglect them when through the use of implications you can cater to both without much additional effort.
Nearly all tags in the end require maintenance to keep them nice and neat, so people confusing them isn't really a good reason. More so because of how everything works, just one individual could be the reason for a tag being "out of order" or "easily confused with another."
In this sort of case I think implicating to a base tag is a good idea, and then any resident medieval weaponry otaku can feel free to get more specific with various types. So, it appears I agree with NWF Remin, although this is not the approach I'd take in every situation.
Someone get me a list of types (that are actually used here, preferably, not just a dump from a weapon encyclopedia) that I can implicate to polearm, if that is indeed the base-tag of choice.
bardiche is the character, which while occasionally a polearm, is not always, so it shouldn't be implicated.
No other polearms are tags to my checks, and with good reason. Everything above should cover the non-complex names that cover most polearms. If I saw bec-do-corbins or lochaber axes as tags, I'd think someone was a might too enthusiastic.
