3

Background

Recently, I help to initiate the creation of a tag called seventeenth-amendment. There are a total of 3 questions that pop up when you enter "seventeenth-amendment" into the search bar, as well as 3 tagged at the time of this question. Right now the only other amendments that exist as tags are:

  1. The first amendment, which has 5 questions which has first amendment in the title and 6 tagged under it.
  2. The second amendment, which has 9 questions with second amendment in the title and 13 tagged under it.
  3. The twelfth amendment, which has 3 questions tagged under it.

There also happen to be several other amendments that have numerous questions around them. I am surprised these do not have their own specific tags yet, these include:

  1. The fifth amendment, which has 6 questions with fifth amendment in the title.

  2. The fourteenth amendment, which also has 6 questions with fourteenth amendment in the title.

  3. The twenty-second amendment, which has 5 questions with 22nd-amendment in the title.

  4. The twenty-fifth amendment, which has 8 questions with 25th-amendment in the title.

I could go on, or maybe enter the queries slightly differently, but my question remains the same...

Question

Given the prevalence of the non-tagged compared to the tagged amendment-based questions above, why don't we make tags for said amendments, (and others in the future, should they garner a larger amount of questions)?

| |
8

(not really an explicit approach here, just some thoughts on the question)

I think it may not be ideal in terms of finding questions. First of all, these tags are specific to the USA. So all questions are also questions. On the other hand, not all questions are questions (because of other countries). Country-specific tags are also rather ambiguous, because some may think about a different country (e.g. almost all countries have an article 1, but they probably mean different things in different texts).

As such, it would be better to use the generic tags so we categorise by subject rather than some rather abstract (for many people who don't know what each amendment is for) tag.

Of course, I used the and as an easy example, it may well be that there are subjects which are covered by amendments without an appropriate tag. My preference would be to create new subject-based tags (preferably with after consulting on Meta) because they can also be used for questions relating to other countries.

I should note that I did something different when creating the [article-50] tag. On the one hand it works well and many other sources just refer to it as article 50, but there are obviously other articles 50, too. I guess it works fine until the ambiguity actually catches up to the site (i.e. more than one subject seemingly covered by the same tag).

One solution would be to make them more explicit, for example and , but that's quite a mouthful (which could be shortened by using numerals rather that writing them in full).

After giving it some thought, it's very similar to this question about country specific election tags. Then, the consensus was that it's better to combine multiple general tags as opposed to one very specific tag. I think the same reasoning applies here.

| |
  • Isn't that the point of the hover text for tags? To eliminate ambiguity? I don't see that specific aspect as an issue. – isakbob Aug 13 '19 at 13:18
  • @isakbob sure, but they're primarily for categorising questions and making it easy to find question about the same subject. An amendment is a subject, but so is the actual subject of an amendment. I'm not saying the amendments make inherently bad tags, but you can only have five on a single question. – JJ for Transparency and Monica Aug 13 '19 at 14:02
  • I agree with this comment. It makes sense given my edits that have been rejected, that if there are many tags already on a question, removing them won't help with findability or clarity, nor will adding the amendment specific tag. So I guess that means this is now the accepted answer! – isakbob Aug 13 '19 at 14:11
  • @isakbob I don't know, I added a bit more at the end but it's still more a discussion point then an answer. You can accept it, but how do we proceed now? Do you agree with that newly added part as well? – JJ for Transparency and Monica Aug 13 '19 at 14:15
  • I disagree...somewhat. I haven't seen any questions of note where "xth-amendment" ever referred to anything outside the amendments of the united states constitution. I see the issue of cluttering with over specific tags and the need to unify into a generic tag (constitution and amendment to exist generically). But that is along the lines of what I mentioned (somewhat) in the original question: Included tags for specific amendments if they show up a bunch. For example, I'm not thinking of even suggesting a third amendment tag anytime soon. – isakbob Aug 13 '19 at 14:46
  • @isakbob okay, I removed that very last part, now it just encourages using multiple general tags as opposed to one more specific. As for the amendment, I think they can sometimes be helpful, especially the well-known ones like the second amendment or article 50 (in the EU). – JJ for Transparency and Monica Aug 13 '19 at 14:48
  • Back to agrement then....are there any unresolved points? It sounds like the apporach is: only use amendment (or article) specific tags if it is sure to help findability and the possibility of ambiguity is low. Otherwise use a general tag, a series of general tags, or create a non-specific subject tag. – isakbob Aug 13 '19 at 14:58
  • 1
    @isakbob I'd say in general subject tags are better. If there's room and if it's a commonly used term (e.g. second amendment / article 50) then that can be used as well (possibly using with the subject tag). More general rights may be referred to by a common term (not treaty-specific), for example the right against self-incrimination (but then that's a bit long for a tag). – JJ for Transparency and Monica Aug 13 '19 at 15:05
1

How many countries have a X Amendment. Why should we restructure Stack Exchange to have a bias for US politics?

Expansion: How many nations have a Constitution. Throughout the world, must First amendment only apply to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?

| |
  • 3
    Could you elaborate please? I do not understand what you are asking or asserting here. – isakbob Aug 13 '19 at 14:39
  • And if we had a significant number of questions about the First Amendment(s) of the constitutions of countries other than the United States, this would be a valid point. – Sean Aug 29 '19 at 1:20
  • @Sean So you're arguing for a US supremacy bias in the archival format of this stack exchange? – Drunk Cynic Aug 29 '19 at 1:38
  • @DrunkCynic: Since when do we have enough questions about (for instance) the First Amendment(s) of the constitutions of countries other than the United States to justify doing otherwise? – Sean Aug 29 '19 at 1:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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