Considering the raising interest towards ongoing presidential elections in the USA, I'd like to clarify using , , and probably and tags. The last two, in my opinion, are not that much abused, however.

Many questions are being unadvisedly tagged with several/all of those, and this makes searching by tag pretty difficult.

We also know that "Tags should help to describe what the question is about, not just what it contains."

Also, this resembles typical problems of tagging questions at StackOverflow: Should jQuery questions always be tagged with “javascript”? (personally, I'm not very convinced by Shog9's answer, but this is the way how the things are).

Is there a plain English description of which tag should be used?
I have my own (naive) understanding of these, but I'm afraid my English wouldn't let me make a good writeup on this topic.

I don't know if this is a separate question or not, but and seem to be so much narrow.

| |

I would consider the tag to be used incorrectly often. E.g.

To me, a voting system is something like first-past-the-post or proportional representation. These questions seem to be using it as a placeholder for political theory or analysis. Hey, there's voting -- it must be a system!

Note that the Obama question is especially egregious, as it is entirely a point of political trivia related to how one politician voted. It doesn't touch on voting theory at all.

Here's my proposal for the tag wiki excerpt (what shows when you hover over the tag):

For questions about rule systems for gathering and counting votes. Not for questions about country-specific rules but for the theory and practice of voting systems. Examples include proportional-representation and first-past-the-post.

| |
  • Thanks for looking deeper than I have asked. In fact, adding statements like "Not for questions about […]" to tag descriptions is maybe the best formulation of what I'm looking for. Not only for voting-systems, but for all tags I mentioned. – bytebuster May 15 '16 at 17:17
  • 2
    regarding using "not for X", If using that tag for X is a very common occurrence, than go ahead and add that to the tag description, but I'd be weary of enumerating badness. Sometimes there's no end to the ways a tag can be abused. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica May 15 '16 at 19:48
  • 2
    I vote to go ahead and remove the voting-systems tag from every one of those examples. – lazarusL May 19 '16 at 16:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .