3
$\begingroup$

I believe that if a question is correctly tagged, it may be very useful to all users of the site, since it makes finding questions much easier. Another advantage is that users can easily follow questions from their area of interest.

Tag-wikis are helpful in tagging question correctly, in particular, for some tags that seem ambiguous, tag-excerpt and tag-wiki usually explain the intended usage.

This is perhaps more important at main site than at meta, but tag-wikis at meta are useful, too. For example, often the tag-info on meta contains links to basic information about the topic of that tag and so it is might be a useful place where to direct users asking about that topic.

In the last few days I've created or edited a few tag-wikis here at meta. Usually I have copied the tag from corresponding tag at meta.SO, perhaps with addition some information specific to math.SE.

If you think that this is a useful thing, I invite you to joint the effort to add more tag-wikis here and at the main site.


Sometimes I wasn't sure what should be written in the tag-wiki. This is the reason why I am starting this thread - so that questions about tag-wikis can be posted here.

TL;DR If you are not sure whether the text chosen for a tag-wiki or a tag-excerpt for some tag at meta is a correct one, this is the right place to ask.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I've copied tag-excerpt for from meta.SO.

Proposals for new entries for the FAQ repository on this site should use this tag.

If you have a look at the tag-wiki for this tag at meta.SO, a detailed description of "How can a question be added to the FAQ?" is given there. I do not know what the instructions for this at math.SE would look like; perhaps some of the mods or more experienced users could provide the text for the tag wiki or at least link to a post explaining this, if we have such post.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

After the two recent suggested edits here (rejected) and here (approved), the tag on meta, has still empty tag-excerpt and the tag-wiki currently says:

Big-list, used when requesting large lists of information (please number or bullet questions and answers), should be use in conjunction with other tags.

My impression of the questions currently tagged on meta is that most of them are questions which are likely to have many answers (lists of questions, comment templates, tag management threads). But another reasonable interpretation of this tag is that it could be used for discussion of questions on the main.

Is this the correct interpretation of the tag? Should it be used both for questions on meta which might result in big list of answers and for discussions about this type of questions on the main?

If yes, we should modify the tag-info accordingly.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I would oppose awarding big-list a special status in this regard. I'd say that anything discussing main's big-list should have [tagging] as its primary tag, which seems to me sufficient. $\endgroup$ – Lord_Farin Jul 10 '16 at 18:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Lord_Farin The posts on meta discussing big-list questions on main can be of different nature. For example, I can imagine questions where (allowed-question) would be much more suitable than tagging. (Of course, this is not the main reason I posted this. I take into account your point that there is no need for a special tag for meta-questions about big lists.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jul 10 '16 at 19:16
0
$\begingroup$

I have added some links to posts on this meta to the tag-info for . Namely Asking the same question on MSE and MO and Moderator Supported (Official) Guidelines for "Legitimate" CrossPosting?

Since I do not want to include there some misleading information, I would be grateful if some other users have a look whether there are more suitable posts which should be included there. And, as always, any further possible improvements to the tag-info are welcome.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ To be more specific, I do not like the sound of "Moderator Supported (Official) Guidelines for "Legitimate" CrossPosting?" too much, but that's the title of that question. Do you think that it would be better if the tag-info said: "See... for example, Asking the same question on MSE and MO and this answer"? $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 11 '17 at 12:42
0
$\begingroup$

Some time ago I created tag-wiki for the tag here on meta with this text:

For questions concerned discussion about using MSE for cheating on exams. (For example take-home-exams.)

According to this SEDE query (from this answer) it was around the time when the tag was created and the first questions in this tag were Adding a special close reason for exam questions and Posting exam questions.

So I thought that the above text gives a reasonable explanation of the intention with which the tag has been created.


Now I see that there is (at the moment still pending) suggested edit for the tag-wiki with this edit summary: "updated wiki - previous one was just plain wrong". The suggested new text is:

For questions and discussion about using MSE for exams.

MSE can be used to learn or revise for exams. There is no policy about using MSE to cheat on exams.

And there is corresponding edit suggestion for tag excerpt.


So I wonder whether I misunderstood what the tag was intended for when it was created. Or whether the problem is my poor wording, not being a native English speaker. (As you can see from the grammar mistake in my original version of the tag-wiki and tag-excerpt. I probably wanted to write concerning instead of concerned.)

Anyway opinion of other users on how this tag should be used and how the tag-info can be improved are welcome.

(Still I think it is a relatively minor issue - so I did not want to open a separate thread for this. If we see that this needs a longer discussion and that new thread on meta just for this particular tag is needed, we can create one.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I had not noted this post in time. Anyway, I rejected&edited the suggested edit to something rather close to your original. (While leaving somewhat open the alternative use. There is likely no harm in using it for that also.) $\endgroup$ – quid Jan 12 '17 at 18:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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