9
\$\begingroup\$

I have recently seen some uses of the tag . I believe this tag doesn't bring about any benefits, which, from what I understand, is a thing we want to avoid.

First of all, tags serve to help experts in a given are recognise questions that require their expertise. This, of course, cannot be considered with . Nobody can specialise in questions about attacks, not only since they are system dependent and the questions about attacks are so diverse, but also because specialising in 'attack' doesn't make sense even in conjuction with a system-specific tag.

Second, they help to find questions from the past. Unless you specifically know that there was a question with this tag, again, finding questions based on it is hopeless, especially with the inconsistency with which it is used.

Third, it is often too narrow and describes only a part of the mechanism, which, I believe, should be tagged . I find this tag more descriptive, unlike , and synonymising them into the tag would be, in my opinion, an improvement on this site.

Otherwise I fear that the tag is just an empty useless label added only in order to take up space in the tag department.

Any thoughts on this?

\$\endgroup\$
10
\$\begingroup\$

I think it makes more sense to have it removed than to synonimize it with . Looking at the questions tagged It looks like most of them don't need the tag and aren't about combat directly so they don't need that tag either.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I thought about that, but then it occured to me that it would've led to the attack tag being refounded instead of redirecting the users to use a different tag instead. However, as this is massively the most voted answer, please feel free to remove it. \$\endgroup\$ – kravaros Aug 7 '13 at 7:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @kravaros this is true. That does one of two things. Either it provides a reset for the tag and allows it to reoccur as something more useful, or sets up the possibility of a blacklist if it recurs and still is not useful. \$\endgroup\$ – wax eagle Aug 7 '13 at 10:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ So just remove "attack" or remove "attack" and add the synonym? Otherwise it's just going to come back and we haven't really solved anything. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk says reinstate Monica Aug 7 '13 at 12:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ P.S. If people want it removed y'all can do that, you only need a mod (or a real high rep user) to set up the synonym. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk says reinstate Monica Aug 7 '13 at 12:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ There are way too many questions with "attack" on them to just remove it. If 25 people have found a use for that tag then replacing it with "nothing" is unlikely to be appropriate. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk says reinstate Monica Aug 15 '13 at 13:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk it's not a singleton on any of those. You can request the com team destroy it. And 25 questions is nothing when it comes to removing a tag. \$\endgroup\$ – wax eagle Aug 15 '13 at 14:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ I disagree, simply because those people have tagged with it for a reason. Replacing with combat or something makes sense to me, but saying "no, your question isn't about attacking or combat at all" is bad. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk says reinstate Monica Aug 15 '13 at 21:29
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ That's not what removing the tag means. It's recognition that as a tag it's not really useful. It does absolutely nothing to the question itself. \$\endgroup\$ – wax eagle Aug 16 '13 at 0:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ To those questioners, they are asking about stuff that happens while conducting an attack. I'm increasingly unclear why we think that's invalid. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk says reinstate Monica Aug 16 '13 at 22:52
-4
\$\begingroup\$

I agree, and will add a tag synonym attack->combat unless there is a higher voted answer here I find compelling.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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