10

I've noticed a lot of questions have been tagged . The consensus, I think, used to be that separate tags should be preferred over such specific tags, for example based on these questions:

Should country specific "Constitution" tags redirect to "constitution"?

Make le tag [presidential-election] specific again? Oui? Non?

Based on that, should we rollback questions that have had such composite tags added overnight? In this case, I'm specifically asking about the tag in this case.


I'm aware there's also a tag, but that seems to be about a specific concept that's not fully captured by another combination of tags. This question isn't about that.

  • 1
    I would say the bigger issue with [trump-impeachment] is that it is a tag for a specific event. I don’t know if those should exist – divibisan Nov 6 at 16:27
  • @divibisan I don't think that reasoning really flies. It's a process, just like Brexit is a process. Probably, both will be events in the past at some point, but that doesn't really make it less useful to tag them to make it easier to find, I think. The problem here is that this might be too localized for a tag, we would also want tags [usa], [donald-trump], [impeachment] and a fourth tag to capture the same meaning means there's less room for other relevant tags. – JJ for Transparency and Monica Nov 6 at 16:34
  • @divibisan: brexit. – Fizz Nov 7 at 0:02
  • And "trump-wall" could in theory not exist and just have Trump and border as tags. As you note, something could be lost by doing that. Frankly the fact that there's no generic border-wall tag (even though these exist aplenty elsewhere and there are questions about them) it's probably the more bothersome part in that case. – Fizz Nov 7 at 0:15
  • @Fizz I think [trump-wall] is about the unique concept proposed by Trump. The tag excerpt rather bluntly excludes structures predating the Trump administration. But yea, it's probably too localized for a tag as well. – JJ for Transparency and Monica Nov 7 at 0:22
9

Although I did not come up with it (but noticed it when someone else applied it to one of my questions), I think trump-impeachment is ok as a tag, as much as brexit is. Just tagging everything about Trump's impeachment with the generic impeachment tag risks overrunning the latter with Trump-specific stuff that's of little general value, like which witness said what etc. As usage guideline I would suggest using:

  • Trump-impeachment only if there's hardly any general issue of impeachment rules etc. being touched on in the question.
  • The generic tag if the question is mainly about impeachment rules etc. with little particularity about Trump's case.
  • Both tags if the question is asking about how some general rules apply to Trump's impeachment in particular.

Alternatively, we could tag questions in the first bullet above just with donald-trump but then that could be a little odd when the question hardly mentions Trump, e.g. if it's a question about Lev Parnas or something like that.

  • This seems interesting, but the guidance for when to use which combination of tags should probably be clarified so we don't get people adding and then removing tags. Specifically, if the question is just about Trump's impeachment, which other tags should we always add? Should [donald-trump] and [usa] always be added? The first only when relevant but always add the [usa] tag (as it's always about that)? – JJ for Transparency and Monica Nov 7 at 0:05
  • 2
    @JJforTransparencyandMonica: The Donald-Trump tag says "Use for questions specific to Donald Trump or his policies. Use with the [united-states] tag." So, "yea" for adding the US tag. Like I said one could argue that "specific to Donald Trump" covers everything related to his impeachment, but then someone else could disagree. So if we want just his name tag for his impeachment-specific questions, we should probably clarify the "impeachment" and "donald-trump" tag usage hints. – Fizz Nov 7 at 0:10
  • Yea, I'll probably refrain from voting to see if there are a few more suggestions. I'm still not entirely convinced that the single tag is better than the two separate ones, especially if we still need the two extra tags in some, possibly many, cases. Of course the Parnas example is also relevant, the generic tags might seem out of place there. – JJ for Transparency and Monica Nov 7 at 0:15
  • I did some cleanup on a couple of questions that were not about this specific impeachment. I also added a better excerpt. I think Fizz is right, in that this is like [brexit] – Machavity Nov 14 at 17:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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