6
\$\begingroup\$

Instead of generating a bunch of questions about how specific tags may or may not be the same, lets have them all in one place.

One pair (or triplet, etc) of redundant tags per answer.

This is just a place to collect tags that should be brought to everyone's attention because they might be synonyms and you can't suggest synonyms yet. Or they might be tags that are getting fuzzy around the edges and may need some work done to keep them separate.

Until we come to a solid conclusion about how to handle the redundant tags either by making them a synonym or by retagging them or deciding they are NOT the same, vote or comment on the suggestion. This list is just for collecting them in one place.

If the suggestion is synonymized, the suggestion (i.e. the answer) should be deleted, since synonyms are automatically retagged by the system and the answer here becomes clutter. If the suggestion is decided against it should stay here so future suggesters can see the historical discussion and add their 2 cents.

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Remember, if you have enough rep, you can suggest a tag synonym. \$\endgroup\$
    – C. Ross
    Sep 11 '10 at 15:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yep. This is a support forum for those who don't, and for discussion of borderline cases. \$\endgroup\$ Sep 11 '10 at 20:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also, I hesitate to take definitive action until we decide whether pro-active pruning or a bit of laissez-faire folksonomy is the way to go right now. I wanted to get these down somewhere for when we decide. \$\endgroup\$ Sep 12 '10 at 1:29
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ A comment for new folks, as it's something I had to discover: it's not just rep, but rep in the tag that counts for synonym generation. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jadasc
    Apr 18 '13 at 11:49
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm closing this since it's not something we use nowadays and I'd like to avoid confusion there. The large amounts of redundancy this seems to have been created to curtail are no longer an issue. (Hooray!) \$\endgroup\$ May 22 '17 at 21:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yep, this seems to have solved the original glut of duplicates! \$\endgroup\$ May 22 '17 at 22:15

12 Answers 12

10
\$\begingroup\$

[gaming-aids], [game-aids], and [tools] seem to be synonymous or at least one is a subset of the other based on use.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Good catch! Added [game-aids] as another redundant tag to this answer. [tools] is by far the most popular one at the moment. \$\endgroup\$ Sep 12 '10 at 1:27
8
\$\begingroup\$

[character-creation] and [character-generation]

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ I disagree; I associate [character-generation] with using a tool to create characters/NPCs while [character-creation] is about manually rolling characters; currently I'd say the only [character-generation] questions is mis-labeled. \$\endgroup\$
    – LeguRi
    Sep 12 '10 at 2:37
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ Huh, that's not an association I have. I regularly see character creation referred to as "chargen", and I don't think they're talking about using tools… Apart from that, "generation" and "creation" are English synonyms. \$\endgroup\$ Sep 12 '10 at 3:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If that's the case, wouldn't it be better to use the tag tools? It means the same thing and doesn't require a tag that is only used for a few edge questions. \$\endgroup\$
    – user5834
    Apr 18 '13 at 19:09
6
\$\begingroup\$

<-> <-> <->

Not sure which is best and it should probably be synonym-ized, unless I'm missing some distinction between them.

Personally, I use battlemat, but that appears to be trademarked by Chessex, so I'd vote the best answer as the generic .

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for the research, now go edit the tag wiki ;-). \$\endgroup\$
    – C. Ross
    Apr 19 '11 at 13:07
4
\$\begingroup\$

, , and

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ A synonym was approved for gm-style to gm-techniques. I am also tempted to merge gm in, but am worried that it has another use not obvious to me. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Apr 26 '11 at 3:54
4
\$\begingroup\$

and seem to cover similar ground.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ In theory statistics could be used to tag questions about "ability scores" or some such, but you're right that it's being used as a synonym for "probability" in every case. Looks like the preferred tag is probability, so make statistics a synonym? \$\endgroup\$ May 30 '12 at 16:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie That's what I would do, but I think it requires reputation or something... \$\endgroup\$
    – Tommi
    May 30 '12 at 19:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ It requires some amount of reputation derived from questions with those tags, yeah. I just wanted to discuss what the synonym direction should be for whoever might implement this, should it get consensus support. \$\endgroup\$ May 31 '12 at 0:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ Personally I thought of using statistics before I thought of probability. \$\endgroup\$
    – Daenyth
    May 31 '12 at 23:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think the difference between eight and five questions isn't that significant. At the moment I'm planning on making Probability a synonym of Statistics. \$\endgroup\$
    – AceCalhoon
    Jun 1 '12 at 18:08
4
\$\begingroup\$

Is the "in games" implied for this stackexchange, regarding the tag? I propose replacing it with or .

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • \$\begingroup\$ I vote for "languages". \$\endgroup\$
    – Oblivious Sage Mod
    Aug 8 '12 at 16:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ This is an odd one. I think the original intent was to avoid conflict with a theoretical tag about translations? But then, that certainly shouldn't be the primary topic that would get the shorter tag. I'd say it should be languages too. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 8 '12 at 17:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ So should I make the change, or ask a mod to do a bulk edit (can they do that?), or wait for a mod to approve? \$\endgroup\$
    – okeefe
    Aug 8 '12 at 18:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @okeefe I'd say flag it (this post?) for mod attention, as they have better tools (can create synonyms, do bulk edits, etc.). But there's few enough questions that manually editing shouldn't be a huge issue. \$\endgroup\$
    – AceCalhoon
    Aug 8 '12 at 18:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ok, I flagged this post. \$\endgroup\$
    – okeefe
    Aug 8 '12 at 19:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ Done, done done. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Aug 10 '12 at 2:58
4
\$\begingroup\$

We've got both and .

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ experience-points should be the parent. I've made it one, vote here \$\endgroup\$
    – wax eagle
    Apr 18 '13 at 13:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ If only I could. See the comment above: I don't have a high enough answer score in experience-points to be able to vote it up. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jadasc
    Apr 18 '13 at 13:25
3
\$\begingroup\$

I think should be removed since , , , and all already exist and are far less ambiguous. The few questions that aren't about those things are either about book formatting or NPC creation, both of which would benefit from more specific tags. Thoughts?

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ [publishing] covers book layout already, yeah. [npcs] probably covers NPC design as well—I don't think we've got too many questions about NPCs that aren't about how to put them together and play them, so a separate [npc-design] tag would be redundant. \$\endgroup\$ Apr 18 '13 at 18:54
2
\$\begingroup\$

Maybe should be ?

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Hm! Good thought… Reviewing the list of questions tagged with each, they seem to be distinct categories: spells gets used on questions asking about specific spell mechanics, while magic gets used for magic systems and broader questions about using/understanding/visualing magic. It looks like people are using them distinctly, so I'd say we don't need to synonymise them—and it might actually be disruptive to do so. \$\endgroup\$ May 30 '12 at 16:55
1
\$\begingroup\$

<->

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Which one do you think should be the primary? I admit I'm unsure. \$\endgroup\$ Apr 19 '13 at 1:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ I used the <-> arrows because I wasn't sure either. The coin I just tossed recommends making [campaign-settings] primary. \$\endgroup\$
    – Oblivious Sage Mod
    Apr 19 '13 at 15:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm leaning to [settings] because not every setting is for a campaign, but "campaign setting" is such well-established terminology. \$\endgroup\$ Apr 19 '13 at 16:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie: Should I make a separate question about this, to avoid a long discussion in comments? \$\endgroup\$
    – Oblivious Sage Mod
    Apr 19 '13 at 16:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ Nah, long discussions are OK on meta! \$\endgroup\$ Apr 19 '13 at 16:22
0
\$\begingroup\$

Do and need to be separate, for those instances when harm comes to someone outside the fighting rules?

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It seems the 19 questions with damage really do seem to be about damage rather than combat. So, yes? \$\endgroup\$ Apr 22 '13 at 1:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ Well, hell. Fair enough. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jadasc
    Apr 22 '13 at 1:22
-2
\$\begingroup\$

Is [storytelling-system] redundant with [world-of-darkness]? Does one mean the setting and the other the system, or is it fuzzier than that?

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ One is the setting, and one is the system. Exalted also uses the Storytelling System, as did the Trinity/Adventure!/Aberrant trilogy, as does Scion. And, um, Street Fighter: the RPG. \$\endgroup\$
    – Bryant
    Sep 11 '10 at 3:13
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Bryant: The Storytell-ing System is the one developed in 2004 for the World of Darkness core rulebook and subsequent games. Before that, it was the Storytell-er system, and the mechanics are sufficiently different that they're worth distinguishing. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jadasc
    Sep 11 '10 at 12:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @7SD: That's the basics, I think. It doesn't help that the core rulebook for the game is called World of Darkness, even though there's precious little setting in it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jadasc
    Sep 11 '10 at 12:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ If WW distinguishes between the two, I suppose we should. Although the differences between the Storytelling system in (say) Vampire 1st edition and the Storytelling system in Trinity are easily as big as the mechanical differences between V:tM and V:tR. \$\endgroup\$
    – Bryant
    Sep 11 '10 at 13:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ Alright, sounds good. Should I delete this post then, or leave it to be viciously voted down for the benefit of anyone else who thinks they might be redundant? \$\endgroup\$ Sep 12 '10 at 1:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Leave it, by all means. Information is valuable. \$\endgroup\$
    – Bryant
    Sep 12 '10 at 21:46

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