19
\$\begingroup\$

I've browsed through the questions and found these ones:

  1. Questions about issues with
  2. Questions about aspects of role-playing games or
  3. Question about
  4. Questions about a random TRPG problem, in which players are involved somehow

There are more descriptive tags for types 1-3 questions, and type 4 is basically the majority of questions on RPG.SE. Do we really need the tag?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ Previous related discussion: is [players] a meta tag (2010); Worth of "GM" and "players" tags (2013). \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Aug 6 '18 at 7:30
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ You must be a DM; I'd stick to just having rocks fall and everyone dies. (In case you are not sure, that's an attempt at a joke). \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast Aug 6 '18 at 12:57
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I propose changing the question: Do we really need players? instead. (This is a worse version of Korvin's joke.) \$\endgroup\$ – HellSaint Aug 6 '18 at 21:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ Semi-related: How can we improve the description of the [npc] tag?. I'm surprised there hasn't been a similar meta question about the [character] tag (or a question in earnest about the [npc] tag either, though it's not as much of an issue there). \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Aug 5 at 6:05
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't know if this was passed on to the community team after there was consensus here and doppelgreener added the [status-planned] tag, but I've done so now. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Aug 5 at 6:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ I didn't get a response from the community team when I brought it up last time, but I did get a response this time saying they'd hand it off to the person who could do the blacklisting. In preparation for the burnination, I've gone through and retagged a few of the questions that had just a single other tag or no other tag at all. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Aug 29 at 22:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast what should I do with this comment? \$\endgroup\$ – enkryptor Aug 30 at 7:09
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @enkryptor: What do you mean? There's no action needed on your part. Mostly, I just figured I'd provide an update somewhere in this thread (and also explain why there were a bunch of retagged old questions on the front page). Wasn't sure whether to do it as a comment on the question or an answer or what, given the weirdness of the SE format for discussions on meta. Figured under the question would have the most visibility. :) \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Aug 30 at 7:12
23
\$\begingroup\$

We don't need it.

I will agree with what was stated in the answers of the Worth of "GM" and "players" tags question.

My opinion on tags is simple: if I go into the tag query, I should know what I will be looking at. IMO tags are mostly used for filtering and searching. If I have a metagaming problem and I want to check if it was already asked, I will search the tag. If I feel I have decent lawyering skills, I will put the in my favorites and look for answering these. Point being: the tags I personally consider useful are tags that describe what the question is about.

The tag doesn't. As you said, if I look through this tag, I don't know if I'm looking at "I am a player" questions (which doesn't actually need a tag, imo), "I have a problem with a player" questions (which can be either my problem with him being as a player or as a person, so either or something or as you said) or even simply "There are players involved" (which any question about an actual table will have, supposedly). Point being: I don't have a clue what I would be looking at if I went through the tag. (tbh I didn't even know it existed until now). Many of the questions are actually questions, and I wouldn't expect that in a tag called "players".

Okay but how do we know that's not just you being dumb?

Well, I searched through the tag. I still don't know what the tag is about.

I'm not going to paste and justify all the questions, but I have at least read the title of most of the 123 questions and I didn't see a case where the tag was useful.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, the [players] tag is way too broad (and nonspecifically used) to be of use. Any specific uses of such a tag are probably better served by a more specific tag. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Aug 7 '18 at 5:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast Any chance you could make this actually happen? The community consensus seems pretty strong, but it's still in planned status a year later and there are definitely instances of the tag out there. \$\endgroup\$ – Oblivious Sage Aug 31 at 13:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ObliviousSage: See my comments on the question itself. Seems like it might happen soon :) \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Aug 31 at 18:59
5
\$\begingroup\$

Update: Done!

The 'players' tag is not allowed. Questions involving players are naturally welcome on the site, but you should include a tag that describes your specific issue instead. Some suitable tags may include: group-dynamics, player-communication, social, or problem-players. (If asking about characters instead, consider using a tag like party or character-creation as appropriate.)

Background

This looks like a good candidate for blacklisting. It's the sort of tag a person might reasonably assume was useful, but doesn't really add anything to question. At 102 questions, removing the tag is right on the edge of being reasonable to do manually. Looking at the discussion here, I think I can safely eliminate the tag from most of the questions because they already have a more useful tag such as . But I'd like someone to look at questions that might need another tag. By my estimate, these questions could use another look:

[players] -[*-players] -[player-*] -[group-dynamics] -[social] -[gm-techniques]

(I don't know enough about this topic to make a call on this, but would it be helpful to also exclude questions with ? Maybe too, but that seems more a stretch.)

If that query gets down to 0, I'd be happy to just burninate the tag.

As for blacklisting, I need a blurb about why the tag isn't a good fit on the site. For instance, the [rules-as-written] tag has an error that reads:

Rules-as-written questions are however entirely welcome on this site and we embrace a plurality of playstyles. Please simply tag with the game and edition you're asking about. For more information see: Time to retire the [rules-as-written] tag?

A blurb for doesn't need to be complicated, but it should be clear what askers should do instead. Once we settle on copy and the tag is gone from all questions, let me know and I'll blacklist it.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I think almost all of the remaining questions in that list are fine as-is. I don't see a huge benefit to retagging most of the long-closed questions that are unsuitable for RPG.SE; besides those, the existing tags on the questions in that link seem to be fine with their current tags. (At Catija's prompting, I already did a first pass looking at the questions with the [players] tag to make sure there wouldn't be any questions left without any tags.) \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Sep 16 at 19:27
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ As for a blurb for the blacklisted tag, here's a first pass (I haven't run it past anyone else yet): "Questions involving players are naturally welcome on the site, but you should include a tag that describes your specific issue instead. Some suitable tags may include: [group-dynamics], [player-communication], [social], or [problem-players]. (If asking about characters instead, consider using a tag like [party] or [character-creation] as appropriate.)" ...Is there a particular character limit to the blurb? \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Sep 16 at 19:32
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I've run that blurb by the other mods, and they're okay with it. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Sep 17 at 18:04
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast: Good deal. I have some other pressing things right now, but I'll try to get to it later today. Feel free to ping me again if I don't get back to it in a day or two. \$\endgroup\$ – Jon Ericson Sep 17 at 18:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sounds good, will do! :) \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Sep 17 at 18:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks to you both! \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Sep 21 at 0:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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