9
\$\begingroup\$

This particular monster gets a tag, but does that mean every monster gets one? And then do we need to worry about editions/RPGs having different uses?

When do we allow system wide monster/spell/ability tags and do we not? What's the decision making process here?

Seems like we shouldn't have tags for these things, especially system-wide tags.

With regard to , there are only 4 tagged questions, and two are from today.

Should we burninate the tag?

See this related meta on specific spell tags.

\$\endgroup\$
13
\$\begingroup\$

I don't think it's useful, and usefulness is the alpha and omega of whether a tag should exist. Yes, we have other tags that are more specific than , but that doesn't logically mean that all specific monsters deserve tags. We need to be more choosy than that to serve site usefulness of tags.

Yes, we have , but we don't have and wouldn't consider that useful.

Yes, we have , but the problems of wishes in general, not just wish-spell-within-a-specific-game, are general interest enough to deserve a tag. It describes a common type of problem: handling the extreme power of wishes within roleplaying games.

Yes, we have , but that's a big category of things that often have questions about them. We might even consider at some point having or * † considering how central they each are to their respective RPG subgenres and how common questions about the latter come up here, but I don't ever see us thinking that having is useful.

Yes, we have , but we don't have . The right tag there is — the activity itself is where we see questions come up. The actual D&D subclass is not usually a focus enough by itself to transcend and doesn't need its own tag.

We don't need , and won't ever need it. It should be synonymed to .


* Correction: We already do have . Huh, how about that. It seems underused… Then again, the zombie RPG subgenre has always been a weird combination of popular yet niche.

† The only reason I haven't taken the initiative to create already — and I've been tempted many times — is imagining it suddenly showing up as a thoughtless tag tax on every single question about the various Vampire: the Adjective RPGs. Then I back away from the tag edit box cautiously.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ And I learned a new word: synonymed :) Is that what we did with tiny-hut? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Mar 5 at 17:48
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch I think I made that a synonym, yeah. That one seemed uncontroversial, especially with the general consensus that individual spells don't need their very own tags. I don't know that “synonymed” is a real word, but uh… *points to linguistic productivity and runs away* \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 5 at 17:51
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ This is a good breakdown. Tags are useful for classifying certain kinds of questions, or questions about a certain type of thing in game, but mimic is a little too specific to really ever be of use. If "mimic" described a category of monster rather than basically just one specific type of monster, it might be more useful to have on questions relating to that (especially if it had some special interaction with the rules) - but it doesn't, to my knowledge. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Mar 5 at 18:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie So what does it take to make this happen? Because there are 6 questions tagged with mimic currently. \$\endgroup\$ – Bloodcinder Mar 8 at 15:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Bloodcinder I noticed that. But, someone might still come along with a dissenting opinion that makes a really good case for keeping it, so it’s worth waiting a bit longer. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Mar 8 at 15:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ But surely 12 people's support over 2 days is sufficient. (I'm kidding.) Good point. \$\endgroup\$ – Bloodcinder Mar 8 at 15:30
5
\$\begingroup\$

Don't burn because of slippery slopes, burn because it is not useful

"This particular [X] gets a tag, but does that mean every [X] gets one?" is not is not (IMHO) a valid reason to burn a tag alone. We do, in fact have other specific monster tags (eg with 142 questions) and I think it is fine to have them if they are add something useful to the tagging system.

Just because we allow one out of a category to be created does not mean we have to allow the creation of new ones. Each tag should be judged on its individual merit. If it is useful, keep it. If it isn't get rid of it.

For example, we have tags covering several specific spells (eg ), but that doesn't mean there is any need for, nor would we allow someone to create a tag for random spells without good reason.

Burn or synonym mimic to monster

If it was trying to be created today, I wouldn't be in favor of allowing it. but since it already exists I really don't see an issue emerging from it. (To be clear, I also don't see any huge issues emerging from burning it). Though it isn't causing an issue, it also isn't useful. It also doesn't seem to add anything over simply searching for the word mimic. In the end, it is a useless tag and it should be burned (or synonymed to ).

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ That's a good point, and I expanded my question a bit. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Mar 5 at 17:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ If tag bloat isn't' a problem, then you're right. I just don't know if we want to start allowing tag creation for everything (and knowing they might cause a problem due to system relevance). A system with too many qualifiers may make such qualifiers not as useful. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Mar 5 at 17:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch but this is an already created tag. If this was about a tag being created today by a question for mimic that would be an entirely different issue. As it is, I stand by the fact that if it isn't doing any harm, without any other compelling reason, there's no reason to burn. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Mar 5 at 17:14
3
\$\begingroup\$

It should get the same treatment as (which now redirects to ) and just redirect to .

I believe the process is called "synonym".

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ It looks like tiny-hut was burninated? Tag doesn't exist anymore, no? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Mar 5 at 16:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch I don't know what happened because there is no meta, that I can find. I just know that it now points to spells. If that's what happens, then I support it. I couldn't find any documentation on exactly how that process works. \$\endgroup\$ – goodguy5 Mar 5 at 17:02
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Here is the meta which ditched spell names: Should we be tagging individual spells?. Note the reasons don't necessarily extend to other types of content, e.g. we have class tags. Looks like Wish has made it through the fire because of just having tons of questions about it. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Mar 5 at 17:17
0
\$\begingroup\$

Burn it

Just like with this meta, we do not need specific tags for specific monsters.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm disagreeing with this only because I don't believe a blanket statement is necessarily true or useful here. We already do have another specific monster tag that people at least seem to find useful. And this would also rule out a future tag that happens to be a specific monster in and out of D&D such that it is useful for other things. In other words, this lacks nuance. I think the bar should be high, but we should evaluate tags as they are created instead of deciding ahead of time that they are not needed. \$\endgroup\$ – Rubiksmoose Mar 5 at 18:37
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Rubiksmoose No worries! I will only take this as great offense. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch Mar 5 at 18:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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