5
\$\begingroup\$

Assuming that, for example, I'm not interested in D&D at the moment it looks like I might have to filter out over 5 tags to hide D&D questions. Don't You think it's a bit too much?

Who has the authority to merge tags? Or maybe it's better to have lots of tags? I'm not sure at the moment.

\$\endgroup\$
1

9 Answers 9

Reset to default
22
\$\begingroup\$

Given the variety of types of DnD over the years, I think it's fair to have several tags for DnD.

For example, there are a lot of DnD3.5 players who might outright want nothing to do with DnD4.

Likewise, chances are a DnD3.5 player will be thoroughly confused by an ADnD question.

We should reduce nonetheless; I think [dd-encounters] should instead be [dd] and [encounters]. [dd-encounters] refers to a specific Wizards product/program, and is appropriate.

Unquestionably [add1] and [add1.0] should be merged.

I also think [dd] is too vague, given my above point; one should have to be more specific.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree with this. The different editions of D&D will have differing rules questions so a BECMI players will have a hard finding answer among a bunch of D&D 4.0 players. Proper tag construction and filtering can make it easy for those who don't want to look at D&D material. \$\endgroup\$
    – RS Conley
    Aug 20, 2010 at 14:39
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ [dd-encounters] refers to a specific program and set of adventures provided by wizards. It should stay. \$\endgroup\$
    – C. Ross
    Aug 20, 2010 at 17:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ @C. Ross - Didn't know! I will fix this error. Thanks :) \$\endgroup\$
    – LeguRi
    Aug 20, 2010 at 18:06
11
\$\begingroup\$

I think the tags are good. If you want to ignore them all just use dd* in the tag filter.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ +1 As long as it all starts with dd this is in fact a good solution for people not interested in D&D. But there are too many tags for D&D in general. \$\endgroup\$
    – naugtur
    Aug 20, 2010 at 17:24
7
\$\begingroup\$

1.) I think all tags addressing D&D should be edited to say DnD instead of dd (or some other odd derivative). This would help filter out a lot of the redundancies.

2.) Tags should exist for D&D in general, as well as each D&D version. There are some cases, although perhaps rare, in which a question is D&D-specific but not really version-specific.

3.) Tags for D&D-specific products, such as Encounters, the Player's Handbook, etc. should all have the same prefix to avoid confusion and aid in filtering.

\$\endgroup\$
6
\$\begingroup\$

I think a concensus needs to be found on the "n", ie, is it "DD" or "DnD" (both exist at the moment)

I'd allow a version-agnostic tag (ie, I don't think "dd" is a problem), otherwise how would you tag questions like "which D&D version ...", would you have to tag it for every version?

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

I tagged something [dd] [dd4.0] and someone erased the "superfluous" [dd] tag. My thinking was to tag a [dd] on everything related to D&D so people could ignore one tag.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I kind of prefer that myself -- it's useful for ignoring at the very least. I'm also a sentimental fool who thinks that 4e has something to learn from old school and vice versa, so I search on the [dd] tag all the time. \$\endgroup\$
    – Bryant
    Sep 2, 2010 at 20:18
3
\$\begingroup\$

Please remember that historically (and chronologically by version #) you have:

D&D Line:

  • v1: OD&D (3 LLB only)
  • v1a: OD&D + Supplements (with Greyhawk + Blackmoor, the basis for AD&D1e)
  • v2: Holmes D&D (update of thee above, O+Sup)
  • v4: Moldvay D&D (first new-brand D&D differing from AD&D1e)
  • v5: Mentzer D&D aka BECM (omitting Immortals since it's almost unrelated); the LAST Original D&D Line

AD&D line:

  • v3: AD&D 1e
  • v6: AD&D 2e (major expansion/change of 1e)
  • v7: AD&D 3e, renamed D&D 3e (least popular of all editions btw)
  • v8: [A]D&D 3.5e, fixing the massive errors (from lack of playtesting)
  • v9: [A]D&D 4e
  • v9a: [A]D&D 4e+ with vast errata (again, sigh)

Each of the above 9 editions (plus 2 modifications/expansions) are notably different from one another.

It would be nice to have a Tag system allowing individual categorization along with bulk grouping options in searches.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ For bulk grouping, you can use wildcards when searching as well as the "interesting"/"ignore" lists. Use [adnd*], [*dnd*], or [dnd-3*] in the search box, for example. \$\endgroup\$
    – yhw42
    Feb 3, 2011 at 0:47
0
\$\begingroup\$

Is there any way that the tags, "dnd-4.0" and "dungeons-and-dragons-4e" can be merged? I see no reason to have both.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ See the conversation regarding the dnd tags as a whole at Proposed tag synonyms. I think @Brian created the longer version as a test of search engine indexing. \$\endgroup\$
    – yhw42
    Nov 29, 2010 at 2:37
-2
\$\begingroup\$

My issue with the exchange site has been that tags aren’t nested.

\$\endgroup\$
-5
\$\begingroup\$

Can we at least merge and ? I don't see a whole lot of value in having the two different tags; indeed, all but two of are tagged .

FWIW, the two not so double tagged are: The half-elf: is it balanced? & Searching for a particular dungeon adventure

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ What is the value of not having two different tags? They do refer to distinct editions, which seems to be enough to have distinct tags. \$\endgroup\$
    – SevenSidedDie
    Feb 4, 2011 at 21:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Seven: At present, 10 qns have both tags, so that two qns can say that they are about just 3e, not 3.5e. The extra discriminatory power mostly finds itself bulking out the tag list. \$\endgroup\$
    – Alticamelus
    Feb 7, 2011 at 10:55
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ At some point we may well have a bunch of people playing 3e specifically because of some kind of 3e purist revival, at which point the tag will be not only fine, but necessary. If the tag isn't causing damage, then it's in the site's best interest to leave the nascent folksonomy well enough alone. \$\endgroup\$
    – SevenSidedDie
    Feb 10, 2011 at 19:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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