1
\$\begingroup\$

Sometimes we think that a tag should not exist when we see an excerpt/wiki edit when someone tries to establish the tag for the first time. At the same time, should we reject such an edit when it clearly improves the tag excerpt/wiki, or should we temporarily accept it until we eliminate/discuss the tag?

\$\endgroup\$
10
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I feel like this is about something that already happened and was resolved favorably. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 18, 2021 at 15:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov I noticed this on four separate occasions, two different rejections by different users today. I think we can have a fruitful discussion about the topic. In both cases today, I accepted the edits as I thought them beneficial unrelated to the topicality of the tag. Maybe we shouldn't let tags like that establish and bring it to meta if there is disagreement about it. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 18, 2021 at 15:25
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Examples would help, a I doubt there will be a well received blanket policy. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 18, 2021 at 15:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you’re referring to the recent suggested edit for the [bleed] tag, the answer here is probably different for tags we think shouldn’t exist, and tags that don’t actually exist yet. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 18, 2021 at 15:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @AncientSwordRage I don't think we need one either, so I opened a discussion — examples from today: rpg.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/77854 rpg.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/77865 \$\endgroup\$ Dec 18, 2021 at 15:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov I think that edit clarifies that. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 18, 2021 at 15:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don’t think the strixhaven one is representative of what you’re asking here since we had already discussed it. I rejected the edit, and then left a comment on the post for the user to resuggest the edit on the shorter tag, as well as left a link to the meta discussion we had already had about the tag. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 18, 2021 at 15:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov I think it falls into "eliminate it" we did discuss it, and my question includes that. There are multiple ways we can act in those situations- a rejection with a message e. g. informs the user while an accept wouldn't (and they would ponder where the tag went after we eliminate it). \$\endgroup\$ Dec 18, 2021 at 15:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ But I didn’t really eliminate the tag, I just changed the name to be consistent with past usage of similar tags and the meta discussion, and engaged with the user explaining why, and let them get their suggested edit through on the right tag. Totally different situation from what you’re asking about here. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 18, 2021 at 15:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ But maybe I should just focus this question on the other aspect - tags that we didn't discuss yet. (The other tag is now an orphan — so eliminated, a tag that has the same function was also created.) \$\endgroup\$ Dec 18, 2021 at 15:56

2 Answers 2

6
\$\begingroup\$

No, tag wiki edits shouldn't be rejected for this reason

A good tag wiki is one matter; whether the tag should exist or not is another. The matters simply don't relate. “I don't think this tag should exist” is just not a valid reason to reject an edit to its wiki. Review the tag wiki edit based on the edit's own merits. Assume the tag will stay even if you think it should be gone and give us a good wiki to work with while it's here.

If you don't think a tag should exist, the appropriate course of action is to open a question on meta suggesting its removal. Having a good tag wiki helps us manage this process by helping us understand what the tag really is and isn't about, so you should be approving good tag wiki edits even if you think the tag shouldn't exist. It also means if we actually decide to keep the tag it has a good wiki—you help the site run smoothly even if it's not entirely the way you'd have it work.

Declining the edit because you think the tag should be gone, on the other hand, is disruptive. It's withholding the opportunity for the site to work just a little bit better, even if the tag is truly doomed and everyone will agree with you to remove it.

It also means that when it comes time to ask us to remove the tag you'll have withheld information from us: you set the tag up for failure and left us not fully informed. Someone may notice that people were attempting to make that tag work better and others were obstructing that effort. This will hurt the case for removal and sway people to keep it around for further improvement and testing.

If you really want the tag gone, you should be steel manning it: that's representing the best possible version of the thing you oppose (the opposite of the straw man). You can then show that even given the best case it should still be removed. That's not done by voluntarily making the tag function worse by withholding otherwise valid edits to its wiki.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ To see my initial stance mirrored here is reassuring. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 18, 2021 at 23:33
2
\$\begingroup\$

If you have a question about a specific tag, you should ask about it specifically.

To me, this question seems like it is pretty difficult, maybe impossible, to give a really good answer to that isn’t “depends on the tag”. So that’s why I’m going to offer: it depends on the tag and the context.

The better approach is, I think, to just discuss concerns we have about individual tags and individual tag curation actions when we have them, rather than try to shoehorn several unique scenarios into a general discussion like this.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't have a question about a specific tag, I'm asking about a general approach to a set. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 18, 2021 at 16:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Akixkisu Right, and my answer is “the general approach should be to ask about a specific tag when you have a concern”. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 18, 2021 at 16:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ I know, just leaving that comment there in hopes it reduces the chance of other people thinking that this is an XY issue, so instead about a specific action. I want to make that obvious from the get-go. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 18, 2021 at 16:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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