The tag is relatively small, but it is currently split between two types of questions. There are 10 questions that use the tag in reference to a wall of X spell from D&D or Pathfinder, which seems a little against the spirit of not having tags for individual spells. There are also 3 questions on actual physical walls. Since these are obviously two different topics, it seems like this tag is causing confusion.

Is this a problem, and if it is, what can be done to clean it up?

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Related: The jungle tag. Pretty much everything said regarding that tag applies to this one as well. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 21, 2018 at 18:22

1 Answer 1


It's not a great tag, but it's fine (and maybe we can improve it!)

First a point of order: the “tags for individual spells” idea is a red herring: “wall” isn't an individual spell, just a category of thing that (presumably) comes up enough here to warrant collecting together in someone's view. This makes it like (named for the effect type, not the school), , or (named for the effect type, not the spell polymorph).

In that way it's in the pattern of some of our harder-working tags.

It's not great, but it's a valid tag

I noticed it when it was made. When I saw it I didn't think we strictly needed it, but somebody did and I didn't see any reason to override that.

That's because despite my reaction, it ticks a number of big boxes that I look for in a new tag:

  • It represents a problem category that keeps coming up. For whatever reason, wall-type spells tend to generate questions, and the confusion is frequently due to the “wall”-ness of those spells: things like placement rules, spacial interactions with other rules, and other things based on it being a “wall” spell.
  • It collects together a set of questions with commonalities, that might be helpful for a reader to study as a set.
  • People can have spent time getting really good at understanding how wall-type effects work in a given game, so it's possible for there to be experts looking for the tag.

So despite my reaction, it actually seems like a pretty decent tag to me!

There's one fly in the ointment that I've been ignoring until now:

It's getting misused

That's not a great thing. The tag is getting used for things that aren't a natural set: it's getting used primarily for wall-type spells and effects, but also for physical walls. That indicates a problem.

Is it enough to sink the tag though?

No, because it's a fixable problem, and fixable in a way that's less involved than tearing out the tag.

  1. (optionally) Rename to to more accurately reflect its meaning as representing wall spells and wall-type effects. This should prevent it from being misapplied in the future.

    If we don't do that, that's fine too. The size of the tag means that the frequency of it being misapplied is so low that we can easily fix it with manual retagging as we notice it.

  2. We remove it from these two (I don't see a third) questions:

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Other alternate possible names: [magic-wall] or [magical-wall]. \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Commented Aug 21, 2018 at 5:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree the tag is fine, but I don't recognise its usage being a “misuse” or “problem” as you're seeing in that last section: the [wall] tag is describing walls. Some of those walls are magical, some are physical. They are both walls. Why is that misuse or a problem? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 21, 2018 at 13:17
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener It’s not sharing a problem subject, just sharing an accident of terminology. If it had been named “cordon of fire” in 1974 instead, we’d have a [cordon] tag instead and those two Qs wouldn’t be tagged with it. Tags collect a set of questions on the same subject. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 21, 2018 at 16:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ Wall is also a spell area type in D&D 4e (along with area, close, ranged and melee IIRC). I personally would suggest [wall-spell] but [wall-effect] fits the same. I'm pro-renaming. \$\endgroup\$
    – Zachiel
    Commented Aug 31, 2018 at 10:26

You must log in to answer this question.