1

In the last days I saw a bunch of edit suggestions for wiki tag excerpts that merely described what the tag was about but without any usage guidance.

I rejected them all with this reason but most of them were approved afterwards.

Are they really ok?

There are more of them, most (if not all) by the same user.

  • The only two which need it IMO are screen-reader (maybe) and rtl8192cu (which I'm not entirely sure we even need, but I may well be wrong on this, since I don't attend wifi tags at all). I can't see how you could misuse strace xsnow and pcsx, unless there's another application with the same name; anyway even then you have the description as a guidance. Maybe I'm missing something though. – kos Nov 28 '15 at 11:18
4

When a tag is just a bunch of letters (eg PCSX), a definition is useful to ensure they aren't being misused. I completely agree that also specifying usage might make it better, I just don't think there's no value in the definition... Which is what you're saying when you reject.

I also agree with kos, that some tags are pretty self-explanatory. It's either about PCSX or it's not. There's no benefit from having a "Use this tag when it's about PCSX". Most tags will imply that.

You must log in to answer this question.

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