4

As moderators we are able to recommend to the Community Team that certain tags become blacklisted and there is a documented procedure for that: How should we make tag blacklist requests?

Here at G&FH SE we currently have only one blacklisted tag: which cannot be used because it would be pointless to do so i.e. (almost) every question could be tagged genealogy.

There are several other tags that I think lack any value here for the same reason:

Should we request that some or all of these be blacklisted (after burnination of them as per the linked procedure)?

To me the above is a complete list of those tags that I consider useless.

| |
  • There is not much point in blacklisting tags that have 0 or very few questions. This suggests that normal moderation is sufficient to remove these tags in the rare event they appear. – Harry Vervet Jul 16 '15 at 14:36
  • @vervet My thinking was that if we needed to get the Community Team's attention to deal with research then the other three could be dealt with at the same time on the grounds that "prevention is better than cure". – PolyGeo Jul 16 '15 at 19:17
  • 1
    I don't think we have enough consensus to proceed with this one at this time so I have set status-deferred on it. – PolyGeo Aug 7 '15 at 0:18
1

One of the things that I am trying to do now is incorporate more social history into my research, so I would like to see some kind of tags for questions that ask for context. Perhaps or ?

But I agree that the plain tag , like is so broad as to be meaningless.

| |
  • Those two more specific history tags are fine. I have history on my list because it is a superset of family history. – PolyGeo Jul 16 '15 at 6:52
1

I think that could be a useful tag to have, provided its use is restricted to questions regarding the immediate family of an individual.
Creating, say, would be unnecessarily verbose.

I agree that is useless for questions about the wider family as it could apply to almost every question here.

At present it has no tag wiki, so the focus of the tag is not shown to a questioner. If it had one, it would then be easier to moderate its use.

| |
  • 1
    At the moment I don't think any of the six questions bearing the family tag appear to relate closely to immediate family. Could you perhaps link to one or more questions where you think it has been applied in the way you suggest. Personally, I would be fine about an immediate-family tag being coined because its meaning could be inferred without having to read its tag wiki. – PolyGeo Jul 23 '15 at 9:17
  • Immediate-family (same as nuclear family?) would likely apply to the living and persons born less than 100 years ago -- questions tagged this way would be have to worded carefully to avoid closure. – bgwiehle Mar 16 '17 at 15:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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