5

Can we drop the "Questions about" phraseology from the tag descriptions? Right now we have a mix of simple statements describing of the tag topic and more verbose descriptions that start out with "questions about", "questions regarding", "questions concerning", etc.

Do folks think it would be more useful to normalize on statements that directly describe the topic of the tag, or on meta-ish descriptions of questions about those topics?

1
  • @GoneQuiet: No worries, your contributions can always be normalized one way or the other. It is pretty usual to address the topic issue itself rather than the questions in describing tags. There are a few exceptions, but the summary handling things even have text parsing functions specific to declarative sentences about the topics.
    – Caleb
    Feb 19 '12 at 23:35
3

I propose using the less meta more topical summaries without the extra question verbiage, for example would be something like:

The gospel of according to Mathew is _ _.

Rather than:

Questions about the Gospel of Mathew which is _ _.

1
  • @GoneQuiet: Last I checked death was more than a concept, it was a confirmed disease with 100% mortality rate infecting all living things. However, in such cases I would give whatever part of the dictionary definition made the subject relevant on a hermeneutics site.
    – Caleb
    Feb 20 '12 at 4:18
-2

I feel that a very big contributor to the need of "Questions about", is not using a successful convention seen on Judaism.SE, specifically perhaps:

Tag Classification would make the excess clarifications unnecessary:

book-of-matthew

matthew-book

matthew-disciple

Frankly, I think tag-synonyms would solve the problem of clarification.

Or, alternative tag summary, (Re.):

Re. the Gospel of Matthew

Or, we can just "imply" that a "Re." or "Questions [about]"...

However, another issue is the necessity and convention of exclusion:

Re. the Book of Romans; NOT: the Roman empire or Hellenistic culture.

3
  • 1
    Tag synonyms are not for clarification. They are for catching cases where different terms are in common use and we want a single canonical version. The UI isn't designed for any other use case. The tag description on the other hand is designed for exactly that. While a consistent tag nomenclature is a good thing I don't think it really has any bearing on the issue I raised about unnecessary verbiage.
    – Caleb
    Jun 30 '17 at 18:04
  • @Caleb - The example I gave was to try to show how tag-synonyms do actually clarify, without unnecessary verbiage - just like in any language. Another example: "morality, righteousness, justice, equanimity" as tag-synonyms might be a little over-kill, but it also obviates the need for unnecessary / any verbiage. All I am suggesting is - fleshing out tag-synonyms might be a logical first step and might help resolve the issue - as you suggest - in the long term. Jun 30 '17 at 18:12
  • And I'm saying no, that is the wrong tool for the job. The tag synonym list isn't something we really want to "flesh out", it should remain as sparse as it can while still catching duplicate tagging patterns that deviate from our canonical set.
    – Caleb
    Jul 1 '17 at 5:28

You must log in to answer this question.

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