4
\$\begingroup\$

There are currently 9 questions tagged and all of them are also tagged . Do we really need a separate tag?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ This really makes me want to create a folksonomy meta tag =) \$\endgroup\$ – nitsua60 Sep 29 at 5:29
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Uhm... the [patron] tag appears to no longer exist. Does that mean something was done to it? \$\endgroup\$ – Someone_Evil Oct 29 at 8:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Someone_Evil seems so...? \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener Oct 29 at 18:08
1
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, we need a [patron] tag for questions that aren't about warlocks (for instance, wealthy patrons of adventuring parties), so no, we shouldn't merge the two, we should remove [patron] from the existing warlock questions.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ We should then write up what we mean by the [patron] tag as all of the currently tagged questions are indeed about warlock patrons. \$\endgroup\$ – ZwiQ Sep 29 at 3:49
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree with ZwiQ (both the overall Q and this comment); if [patron] means something else besides "something to do with a warlock", then it should be made explicit, because at the moment it just seems like a redundant tag that hangs off the [warlock] tag. Currently, there are no questions about wealthy patrons of adventuring parties or similar that require a patron tag, so it might be better to remove it and wait for such questions to be asked that would then need a [patron] tag. \$\endgroup\$ – NathanS Sep 30 at 8:27
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If we do end up with a separate [patron] tag for non-warlock patrons, I can see it getting put on [warlock] questions again. We could prevent that at that time by making [warlock-patron] a synonym of [warlock], to catch most people who start typing “patron” in the tag field. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Oct 29 at 20:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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