2
\$\begingroup\$

Given that L5R 4th Edition has been around for a while, and the L5R tag contains questions from multiple editions (and is often multi-tagged with L5R-4e) I'd like to make L5R a synonym of either L5R-4e or Rokugan and create a new tag for each of the other editions (such as L5R-2e and L5R-3e). Right now the default assumption seems to be that the L5R tag refers to 4e, but there are no alternatives even though questions have been asked for other editions.

Should we make L5R a synonym? Should it be a synonym of L5R-4e or of Rokugan? Should Rokugan be made a synonym of L5R and the wiki edited to clarify that the tag is intended for setting questions rather than mechanical questions?

Should we create the L5R-2e and L5R-3e tags, since its provable that people are disinclined to create unique tags?

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • \$\begingroup\$ Keep in mind that Rokugan has also become a D&D setting, even if it was then merged with Forgotten Realms' Kara-Tur. Setting synonyms could be problematic. \$\endgroup\$
    – Zachiel
    Dec 11, 2014 at 21:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener Except that there's no particular reason to believe that entries tagged L5R and not L5R-4e AREN'T also about L5R-4e. The L5R tag is entirely ambiguous. It currently refers to the entire product line. That's the part I'm getting at. \$\endgroup\$
    – Wesley Obenshain
    Dec 11, 2014 at 21:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener Maybe I'm missing your point, but wouldn't L5R-2e (2 results, I think) be quicker than either if we added it now? I realized that the Rokugan tag only had one question attached to it, so it probably makes far more sense to make it a synonym of l5r (and specify that l5r is the setting tag). As written, right now the L5R tag covers everything L5R, including all the editions and the D&D stuff. \$\endgroup\$
    – Wesley Obenshain
    Dec 11, 2014 at 21:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie As the person who created the (one question only) Rokugan tag, do you want to weigh in? \$\endgroup\$
    – Wesley Obenshain
    Dec 11, 2014 at 21:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @WesleyObenshain Yes, we may be misunderstanding each other: I was just suggesting not to make it a synonym, for the sake of sifting through questions for the retag effort (wherein you create other versions' tags or whatever). After the retag, do whatever with it. (Now I realise this may have been your intention all along; I'm deleting my comments.) \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Dec 11, 2014 at 23:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've retagged two questions as [l5r-2e]; in accordance with some of your other edits (but not all of them) I've also removed the [l5r] tag from them. Up to you if you want to re-add it. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Dec 11, 2014 at 23:17

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6
\$\begingroup\$

I suggest you don't make [l5r] a synonym of any specific version, because it simply isn't one: [l5r] does not mean [l5r-4e], it means the series itself. It doesn't make intuitive sense to redirect people who write 'l5r' in the tag box to the [l5r-4e] tag.

You'll also be robbing yourself of the generic [l5r] tag, which is useful sometimes, like how we have and and and . Someone who eventually wants to use it will have to jump through a hurdle.

Right now the default assumption seems to be that the L5R tag refers to 4e, but there are no alternatives even though questions have been asked for other editions.

The default assumption is that [l5r] refers to l5r, and some people aren't also tagging with their version because y'all don't have a well-established practice around this and haven't been moderating those questions to enforce that practice. ;)

As for whether you should have edition-specific tags: yes, if it helps. GURPS users opt not to have edition-specific tags because that is not useful for them; the editions are all similar enough it's rarely worth specifying which edition you're using. Most other games with editions have opted for editions tags because is helpful: expertise is very different from expertise.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Two thoughts, 1. don't conflate Rokugan stuff with specific editions and 2. why are we editing versions into subject lines, that's never really good \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Dec 12, 2014 at 0:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk that was done last year for the 2e questions, reasons in the revision. The title of one 2e question looks just fine; the other's title is goofy so I've invited someone to retitle it. \$\endgroup\$
    – doppelgreener
    Dec 12, 2014 at 0:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ Once I realized the [rokugan] tag was only used on one question, the synonym aspect became a little less relevant. \$\endgroup\$
    – Wesley Obenshain
    Dec 12, 2014 at 4:41

You must log in to answer this question.

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