5

I appreciate it's early days, and we're still finding our feet with tags, but given this is a Genealogy and Family History site, do we really need a tag?

Surely this is the sort of Meta Tag that is frowned upon? It's a bit like having a tag on Programmers.SE

As I see it, there are two types of post that may use the tag:

  1. Posts that are also tagged with other more focussed tag(s). In which case, a meta-tag such as adds no value; or
  2. Posts that are not tagged with anything else. In which case, the question is probably either:
    • Very general, and as such likely to be closed; or
    • Off topic for the site

See also related but not duplicate discussion on BRICK WALL and ROAD BLOCK tags

I note, however, some of the responses below... perhaps, rather than blacklisting, this tag needs a tight definition, with use out-with that definition moderated.

  • 1
    I imagine it is the tag when you cannot think of how to tag. Which probably should mean revise the question before posting. I would agree to do away with it. – Fortiter Oct 15 '12 at 14:06
  • Andrew, perhaps you can edit and make a clearer case for exactly why you think family-tree is a bad tag. I'm afraid I can't agree, based on the information you've provided so far. – jmort253 Dec 29 '12 at 4:22
5

I think the family-tree tag could legitimately be used when specifically discussing issues related to the actual trees. For instance, One tree, or a bunch? has the family-tree tag, and I'd say that's an appropriate use of it.

We just need to make sure it's not used as a catch-all for all different types of genealogy questions.

  • 1
    I would tend to agree with this. If a question is being asked for instance on how to format your family tree, then the tag would be relevant. – AvieRose Dec 22 '12 at 0:25
  • Right, a family tree is an actual tangible record-keeping product, whereas brick wall and road block are meta tags that describe the state of a particular problem, not what the problem is actually about. – jmort253 Dec 29 '12 at 4:20
2

Related to this, we have a few questions with the tag but I'm struggling to see what value it adds, given that this whole site is about genealogy and family history? Should it be deleted?

I also suspect that has sometimes been used as a synonym for , as well as being used for other purposes. If we reach a conclusion about the use or lack of it for I suggest we need to define to describe a diagrammatic representation of family relationships and come up with something new for 'database of family history/genealogical information' which has also been referred to as .

  • Agree CVG... family adds no value whatsoever. And while I have some sympathy for your suggestion about using family-tree for diagrammatic representation, I'm not yet convinced. – Andrew Dec 17 '12 at 19:43
0

one important distinction to make is "family tree" is not "familytree.com". Specific websites that use generic names (familytree, ancestry, archives) should include the ".com" (or .org or ....) in their tag.

0

Oddly enough, I'm now continuing some research about different styles of presenting family history information. Indeed, "family tree" is among the terms I am favoring to describe the database driven presentation of linked families.

I find this "family tree" presentation unique from

  • Family Group Sheets
  • Outline Descendant Report or Outline Descendant Narrative
  • Narratives (any form) aka Genealogies
  • X-Generation Pedigree

Etc., etc.

You must log in to answer this question.

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