Looking at the six questions you identify, a mining tag seems pointless -- there's insufficient commonality between the subject matter for an "mining expert" to want to monitor the tag to identify questions they could answer.

Rather than proliferating tag to no good end, I'd rather see the effort go into improving our tag wikis which are quite frankly mostly rubbish.

ETA: Some context http://meta.genealogy.stackexchange.com/a/1716/104 which is my response to http://meta.genealogy.stackexchange.com/q/1715/104

Looking at the six questions you identify, a mining tag seems pointless -- there's insufficient commonality between the subject matter for an "mining expert" to want to monitor the tag to identify questions they could answer.

Rather than proliferating tag to no good end, I'd rather see the effort go into improving our tag wikis which are quite frankly mostly rubbish.

ETA: Some context https://genealogy.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1716/104 which is my response to Is our tagging structure fit for purpose? Do we agree what its purpose is?

Looking at the six questions you identify, a mining tag seems pointless -- there's insufficient commonality between the subject matter for an "mining expert" to want to monitor the tag to identify questions they could answer.

Rather than proliferating tag to no good end, I'd rather see the effort go into improving our tag wikis which are quite frankly mostly rubbish.

Looking at the six questions you identify, a mining tag seems pointless -- there's insufficient commonality between the subject matter for an "mining expert" to want to monitor the tag to identify questions they could answer.

Rather than proliferating tag to no good end, I'd rather see the effort go into improving our tag wikis which are quite frankly mostly rubbish.

ETA: Some context http://meta.genealogy.stackexchange.com/a/1716/104 which is my response to http://meta.genealogy.stackexchange.com/q/1715/104