Yes, if it's used for questions about the German language as it relates to genealogy.
We have the latin tag – I believe the only language tag currently – which has usage guidance:
For questions about interpreting or translating genealogical records
written in Latin
Something similar for the German language would suffice.
For any new tags created ...
I think date tags should be used to the degree they are relevant to the question.
Not all questions require a date tag.
Most questions are general questions involving a certain period of an individual's lifetime, therefore a century tag such as 18th-century is appropriate. In those cases, the answer may be similar whether the individual in question was ...
Remove the research tag.
I have never tagged any of my questions research even though most are about research.
There is nothing in common with questions tagged research, rendering the tag useless. For questions about specific aspects of research we have the following tags:
research-methods: For questions about how to conduct genealogy research and best ...
I think we need only one FindMyPast tag, with an updated tag wiki as indicated below (with my bolding to indicate the change):
A suite of genealogy websites operated by brightsolid online
publishing across several national domains (including .com, .co.uk,
.com.au, .ie). Use this tag when the question is applicable to any
What about jewish (which we already have, so don't needs Jews) and endogamy (to handle the broader topic of endogamy?
From the ISOGG Wiki:
Examples of endogamous groups include Jews, Polynesians, Low German
Mennonites, the Amish, Acadians or Cajuns (French settlers in what is
now Nova Scotia, Canada), French Canadians, people from many Arab
Having thought about this for a while I think it is confusing how for many events we have a sort of "general" tag as well as a "records" tag. While it is simple to re-tag questions with the right tag, it would be better if we could have some clearer names and usage guidances so that questions are tagged correctly in the first place. Therefore I propose the ...
I favour a simple set of guidelines where questions are tagged by geography as follows:
tag a country if the question and answer could be applied to anywhere in that country
tag a county/state/province if the question pertains specifically to that county/state/province
What this means practically is that the vast majority of questions should only have one ...
I suspect part of the problem is that every question has to have a tag and there isn't another tag that would fit the questions about legal/social implications of relationships within current family structures, so the OP clutches at a straw. We should not create a tag that covers that topic.
I do agree the tag info is misleading, as Jan Murphy has said: ...
I don't think we need a tag for it. What is the likelihood that someone would want to subscribe to a site to get all the new acronym questions?
Anyone looking for prior questions about acronyms can easily search for the word instead.
I disagree with this statement:
every migration includes an immigration and an emigration
Note this definition from Wikipedia:
Emigration is the act of leaving one's native country with the intent
to settle elsewhere. Conversely, immigration describes the movement of
persons into one country from another. Both are acts of migration
I think we should:
use migration as a broad tag to cover all movements of people between and within countries
rename immigration to be called immigration-records and apply it to records relating to the entry of people into a country
rename emigration to be called emigration-records and apply it to records relating to the exit of people from a country
Stepping back for a moment to look at the big picture --
I think any discussion of tagging should keep in mind what the tags are used for. We only have the space to put five tags on a question. Which things are most important to tag for?
The Stack Exchange Tour says:
Tags make it easy to find interesting questions
All questions are tagged with ...
Use four tags:
army - for land forces
navy - for sea forces
air-force - for air forces
military-records - for anything that does not fit the above simple classification (e.g. for multiple forces, for when something like Marines does not quite fit). Can be used on its own or in conjunction with above tags.
I too was surprised when this tag was being removed from many questions, without alternative tags being added in some cases. Apparently there was discussion I had missed at: https://genealogy.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3285
The reasoning for removing the tag is not entirely clear to me. The process of re-tagging all the software questions was well underway by ...
I have gone through the 61 questions which are currently (as of 4 Feb 2018) tagged with relationship-mapping.
Jan and others have already described the downfalls of this tag, so I won't dwell on that.
What I propose below is based on the proposal of PolyGeo and ColeValleyGirl (whose idea I initially – and most shamefully – pooh-poohed).
I think we should get rid of the tag, for this reason: all families are complex. I doubt there is a single genealogist that doesn't have multiple marriages, step children, adoptions and even intermarriage of separate lines in their family tree.
Also, questions should be about one of those things specifically, we are unlikely to get a question dealing with ...
I'd like to make a request that we revisit the tags for military records.
I was attempting to pull up all the questions with the tag navy because I have a question about Royal Navy records.
The search appears to redirect to showing me all the questions tagged military instead.
I DO NOT WANT THIS. I want only Navy records, which are going to be quite ...
If I could tweak the settings for @StackGenealogy, I would set the hashtag to #genealogy so that the tweets would show up for users searching for that hashag.
I would ONLY add the hashtag #genealogy and not any of the other tags which we might put on a question -- see this comment made by @Anna Lear in Meta for the reason why:
However, y'all gotta keep ...
At present, we have only a few tags concerning military matters that I can find:
"For questions about documents pertaining to military personnel or units, including service records, muster rolls, medal rolls, casualty lists, regimental log books, etc."
military is a synonym of this tag.
"The sea-going arm of the military ...
My thoughts on the 5 questions are the following:
Defined, well known events that have their own tags should not be date tagged similar to History.SE. That said we need to be careful to ensure we do not up with tons of micro-events (i.e. 1980-Olympics) and keep the use of event tags to broad population impacting events.
If the asker knows both century and ...
I'd like to make an appeal to keep the tag New-York-City, even if we don't want city tags in general.
New York City keeps its own archives and records separate from the rest of New York State. That makes it essentially a separate entity as far as research in historical records are concerned.
Answers which were written for counties in upstate New York, ...
I would like to see palaeography reserved for questions about the study of palaeography and NOT for the second usage currently in the wiki. Note that Wikipedia's article says (emphasis mine):
Palaeography (UK) or paleography (US; ultimately from Greek: παλαιός,
palaiós, "old", and γράφειν, graphein, "to write") is the study of
ancient and historical ...
Tags are not just words that appear in the post. We have a search function to find words that appear in posts. Tags should reflect the main subject matter of the question, so that others looking for similar questions on the same subject can find it.
If we were to tag every question with mining that just mentions the word miner or mining, then that would not ...
I think that part of the confusion with these tags is that they are used on questions for which they are not really the subject matter. I know it is a somewhat a matter of personal opinion what is the subject matter, but for example just glancing through the ancestry.com questions many come up that are not really about Ancestry.com; they just happen to ...