10
\$\begingroup\$

While poking around for interesting tags to fill my favorites I noticed . Currently there are only two questions tagged, and in both circumstances it seems to me that would suffice. Kill it with fire?

\$\endgroup\$
15
\$\begingroup\$

It doesn't seem to be a tag that has much utility or community support, either of which I think is enough reason to clean up a tag. I'd be happy to see it made a synonym pointing to .

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ In my view this is an optimal solution. What's SOP for stuff like this? As the asker is it my duty to enact a change after a certain amount of community consideration? \$\endgroup\$ – Conduit Jul 12 '17 at 18:03
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Conduit This is most efficiently done by a mod, so if there's no good reason put forth to not proceed, after giving the community a bit of time to offer other options, a mod can just do it. (Do poke us via a comment here or a flag on the answer if it seems like we've forgotten it!) \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jul 12 '17 at 19:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ poke +9 chars \$\endgroup\$ – Conduit Jan 22 '18 at 17:18
6
\$\begingroup\$

I'd prefer to keep it. It's a specific topic that people can have interest in and expertise in, and it's useful for searching for anyone who wants to learn about loaded dice. It ticks all the boxes.

It doesn't have much activity to its name, but that's the only issue with it, and since it's fine to have only one or two questions in a tag that's a non-issue. It does absolutely no harm sitting there and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the tag otherwise.

The dice tag can suffice, but there's no reason we need to suffice with just that one.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'd argue that the distinction between dice and loaded-dice isn't sufficient to warrant a separate tag. Having D&D 5e and 3.5e allows us the ability to distinguish between disparate rulesets, but dice and loaded-dice function in the same fundamental way (albeit with changes to probability, for which we have statistics). \$\endgroup\$ – Conduit Jul 13 '17 at 16:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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