Another meta answer gives one interpretation, which is different than the tag wiki, which conflicts with how I have seen the tag used, and how it has been described to me.

Can we clarify the tag wiki to match the meta question, or vice versa, so there is a consistent definition of what is intended for?

This question IS ABSOLUTELY NOT the place to discus what RAW is. It is only about fixing the tag wiki to what it was already defined to be on the meta.

  • \$\begingroup\$ This seems to be a duplicate of What, exactly, is the RAW tag for?, since that covers what's expected inside a question given that tag. Could you check that question over, and clarify your question if that doesn't answer what you're trying to learn? Is this on some level merely inquiring about what "rules as written" means? \$\endgroup\$ Feb 2 '16 at 6:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener edited to point out that the cited meta question ALSO differs from the tag wiki, which... ultimately leaves me in the same position, only worse. \$\endgroup\$
    – Tritium21
    Feb 2 '16 at 6:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sure, we can take a look at updating the tag wiki to be clearer. It does look like it would benefit from being redrafted. \$\endgroup\$ Feb 2 '16 at 6:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also, since we've already covered "what's the tag for?" and don't need a second question about the exact same thing, I suggest this question should just get edited just into a request to improve the tag wiki. Thanks for drawing attention to it though, it's been neglected. \$\endgroup\$ Feb 2 '16 at 6:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener In another thread I am arguing against something that is not consistently defined, so if this could be reworded to express the lack of consistency, I would welcome input. \$\endgroup\$
    – Tritium21
    Feb 2 '16 at 6:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ Given that the [rules-as-written] tag no longer exists, I've removed the [status-deferred] tag from this question. \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast StaffMod
    Jul 19 '19 at 4:33

Sure, we can work on improving the tag wiki. It's expressed less clearly than it could be, and doesn't fully describe what we expect inside [rules-as-written] questions.

I'll point out the meta answer you're referring to is presented as a summary of how we tend to handle things inside the RAW tag, and was vetted by a number of people in the community as fairly accurate. (Apparently without objection! That's a nice surprise.)

I would not say the tag wiki conflicts with how we behave on the site: RAW answers do want to stick to game material, and providing stuff outside that is more or less a frame challenge, but a perfectly OK one in the right circumstances (summarised in that meta answer), so that's not discouraged by any means. The wiki just doesn't make this stuff as clear as it could, so we should definitely revisit it.

  • \$\begingroup\$ There is another question about some issues... which is what I was partially referring to. \$\endgroup\$
    – Tritium21
    Feb 2 '16 at 7:04
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Might be worth noting mxyzplk refers to that "what, exactly, is the RAW tag for?" meta question right at the top, calling it a good summary. \$\endgroup\$ Feb 2 '16 at 7:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast I meant revisit, as in revisit its tag wiki to revise it. (I didn't get that idea you're describing. I mean the highest voted answers are "it's doubtful there's a problem" and "let's keep it" and "let's rename it", editing the tag wiki doesn't seem to have much if anything to do with the current debate.) \$\endgroup\$ Feb 2 '16 at 23:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ OK, thanks, that clears it up. \$\endgroup\$ Feb 3 '16 at 11:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ I suggest we revisit this soon once we as a community hash out a clearer definition of what we mean by RAW in meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/5203/… - it will and should be dependent on that. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Feb 28 '16 at 21:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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