The [bloodline] tag is being used for two completely different concepts in different RPGs

is a little problematic, as it is a concept in three quite large games and neither shares anything but the name:

What should we do? There is little to no chance to get those things somehow can fit under one hat for an overarching definition, as called for here - So Is there some solution?!

• To the downvoters: WHAT is wrong with the question? Aug 6 '21 at 20:40
• Worth mentioning: Bloodlines are also part of Vampire: the Requiem, where they are very similar to but still distinct from the concept in Vampire: the Masquerade. Aug 9 '21 at 4:37

I don't think there's special action needed here. The tag can be given guidance just fine:

For questions related to special bloodlines (such as vampiric, draconic, etc) and gameplay or narrative features related to them.

We don't need to specify the exact per-system meaning in the tag guidance. We could elaborate on what it means in different systems in the tag wiki (sorta like in your question) but that won't cause problems either.

If there's some problem that warrants splitting it up into multiple tags, we can still do that, but the tag description in and of itself is not that problem. If we did that, let's be mindful a tag called [vampire-bloodline] would still probably get shared between multiple systems.

A term appears in different systems, and that's okay.

It is true that has completely different meanings in different systems. Why is that a problem?

If a user wants to find a system-specific question about bloodlines, then their best option is to search for content with both the system tag and the tag. Most questions have multiple tags, including a system tag, so this search should be relatively easy.

For example, searching [pathfinder-1e] and [bloodline] finds Pathfinder 1e questions about sorcerer & bloodrager bloodlines. Or, searching [vampire-*] and [bloodline] finds questions about vampire bloodlines in the World of Darkness systems.

If the presenting question is "how should we define the tag", then that should be proposed as an answer to the meta discussion "Tags with at least 10 questions that need usage guidance". It seems feasible to propose a definition that is flexible and independent of system.

• The problem is: There just was a call to define the bloodline, and as it is: there can't be a definition that fits both as they are so opposed. Aug 6 '21 at 20:41
• In that case, the question to ask is "what should be the definition of the bloodline tag?", which is a different question. Aug 6 '21 at 20:43
• Not really: the question is "What shall we do with this tag as there is literally no chance to actually make that definition ever?" - maybe you add something about that problem? Aug 6 '21 at 20:44
• Ok, I've removed the paragraph about the skills tags. It was a bad comparison. Aug 7 '21 at 7:50

I suggest to rebrand the two and burninate the pure one for:

• I'm not even sure it's even a necessary tag. Just burninating it might be the better option. Aug 6 '21 at 20:15
• Bloodline seems to have a different meaning in D&D 3.5 than in Pathfinder 1; see rpg.stackexchange.com/a/159056/64464. I'm not familiar with VtM, nor am I all that familiar with 3.5, but I'm fairly confident the Pathfinder 1 questions that tag [bloodline] can simply have [sorcerer] tagged in their place, if it isn't already. Maybe the 3.5 stuff could be replaced with [bloodline-levels]? In general, I'd prefer burnination as well, but my knowledge is fairly limited.
– ESCE
Aug 6 '21 at 20:24
• [sorcerer-bloodline] IMHO seems perfectly appropriate for Pathfinder, which is the only one of these games I played. Bloodragers explicitely use the Sorcerer Bloodlines, being a hybrid class. I agree that having a single [bloodline] tag cover three wildly different concepts in different games is confusing. Aug 7 '21 at 6:56