There are currently 9 questions tagged patron and all of them are also tagged warlock. Do we really need a separate patron tag?
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
3
-
4\$\begingroup\$ This really makes me want to create a folksonomy meta tag =) \$\endgroup\$– nitsua60 ModSep 29, 2019 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 ModOct 29, 2019 at 8:42
-
\$\begingroup\$ @Someone_Evil seems so...? \$\endgroup\$– doppelgreenerOct 29, 2019 at 18:08
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
3
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.
-
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\$– ZwiQSep 29, 2019 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\$– NathanSSep 30, 2019 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\$ Oct 29, 2019 at 20:24