3
\$\begingroup\$

I saw a tag name format which I thought was interesting:

sr4.shadowrun - Tag for Shadowrun, 4th Edition

sr4.matrix - Tag for stuff related to matrix rules/info in SR4

What do people think about adopting this convention for other systems? Ex:

dd35.monsters - Tag for monster stats in D&D 3.5

Is this a good tag format? Or would it have been better to use separate tags:

sr4 shadowrun

sr4 matrix

Can tags have uni-directional associations? i.e., an sr4 tag is, by definition, a shadowrun tag; but, not all shadowrun tags are sr4 tags (they could be using 3rd ed).

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Made this community wiki \$\endgroup\$ – RMorrisey Aug 21 '10 at 18:07
4
\$\begingroup\$

I do not think that doing subtags like [dd3.5-monsters] is a good idea. That should be [dd3.5] [monsters] or even better [dd] [dd3.5] [monsters]. Otherwise we get tag sprawl with every single combination that you could have (oh look, this question should be tagged [discussion-tagging-community-wiki]). I think this is a crutch for those who don't know how to and/or tags.

That is also how it's done on the main trinity. On Stack Overflow, for example, you would tag a perl question [perl], additionally with [perl5] if it is specific to that version. There are very few exceptions to this. For example, there is a [perl-module] tag - but there are more questions tagged [perl] [module] than [perl-module].

My conclusion - no hierarchical, multipart, whatnot tags. Ones that exist should be retagged.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree. Monsters is a more valuable tag than dd4-monsters. I can look at all the tags that have monsters and pick and choose the ones I'm interested in. And who knows I may find unique combinations as the amount of questions grow. \$\endgroup\$ – anon186 Sep 9 '10 at 11:05
3
\$\begingroup\$

Personally, I think we should just stick with using -s as delimiters.

Does [dd3.5] mean [5] as a sub-category of [dd3]?

I think [dd3.5-monster] is better than [dd35.monsters].

Likewise, [sr4.shadowrun] I think would be better as [sr4-shadowrun].

(does that sr stand for "Shadowrun"? Cause if yes, then I think it should just be [sr4] or [shadowrun4])

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think sr4-shadowrun would be good. The problem with [sr4] is that if I go to type "shadowrun" or "shadowrun-4", "sr4" won't come up in the auto-complete search, so it would be easy to introduce duplicate tags \$\endgroup\$ – RMorrisey Aug 21 '10 at 18:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @RMorrisey - Can't the mods setup synonymous tags? So there could be be both [sr4] and [shadowrun-4] and tagging as one would automatically be replaced with the other or something... ? \$\endgroup\$ – LeguRi Sep 9 '10 at 13:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ That would be a sensible solution \$\endgroup\$ – RMorrisey Sep 16 '10 at 1:21
0
\$\begingroup\$

Key technical note: you can search on multiple tags inclusive, although you can't explicitly exclude tags. I should see if there's a meta proposal on that.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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