I think I created the [Half-Orc] tag today when asking Does the half orc's Savage Attack work when wild shaped? It made sense to me to tag it, as it's a feature unique to the Half Orc+Druid combination. 'If I'm going to tag it Druid, why wouldn't I tag it Half-Orc?' I thought.
A few moments later I thought to tag Does the half orc's Savage Attack work when wild shaped? with [Half-Orc]; that edit occasioned the following feedback: "...Tags should help to describe what the question is about, not just what it contains" and "I'm not sure we need a tag just for half-orcs...."
This all got me thinking and digging through the tags (5e core, just 'cause that was the only rulebook I had with me). We currently have questions tagged by race or class in the following numbers:
Class: Barbarian 45, Bard 49, Cleric 122, Druid 123, Fighter 70, Monk 136, Paladin 69, Ranger 68, Rogue 96, Sorcerer 80, Warlock 92, Wizard 123.
Race: Dwarf 6, Elf 11, Half-Elf 5, Halfling 10, Human 0, Gnome 0, Dragonborn 0 (though Draconic-bloodline 3), Half-Orc 1, Tiefling 3.
It sure doesn't seem like the racial tags are doing much lifting. Is there any need to re-evaluate the usefulness of the tags? Or whether more questions should be racially-tagged? Such as I Roll To Seduce The Dragon! (or, Do doublings of proficiency bonus stack?)