Timeline for Should we round up some of the [magical-creatures]?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:43 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 9, 2015 at 6:02 | answer | added | Wad Cheber | timeline score: -4 | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 22:09 | comment | added | phantom42 | The 223 results filtered for questions don't necessarily mean that the questions are about phoenixes, but if you're trying to peruse questions about them, I'd think that that's the way to go versus using tags. | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 22:08 | comment | added | phantom42 | Just some possibly useful/interesting metrics for discussion: search: "[phoenix]" (tag only): 11 results. search "phoenix" (phrase, no tag): 791 results. search "phoenix is:question": 223 results. search "phoenix is:question [harry-potter]": 173 results. you can also add in/exclude some x-men/comics related stuff. | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 20:52 | comment | added | user31178 | I'm a proponent of tags, as a user. If you want to find specific questions, it's better to use the search. But if you want to peruse topics, tags are a wonderful way to go. I support this clean-up, because I'd much rather peruse "magical-creatures" as a whole, than just "centaurs" or "phoenixes". However, I think "centaurs", "phoenix", "unicorns", and "basilisk" are primarily just [harry-potter] questions where no extra creature/character tag is needed. "Elves" and "dwarves" are similarly [lotr] questions. | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 14:31 | comment | added | DVK-on-Ahch-To | @Keen - as I noted in the comment thread you found, the tags fully fit within Beofett's definition of what makes a good useful tag. So if that's your criteria, this question should be deleted and those tags left alone. | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 12:57 | comment | added | phantom42 | Err.. Question/body search, not title search. Sorry - too early in the morning. | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 11:37 | comment | added | phantom42 | Your note about the lack of usage of the tags is why I almost never bother searching by tag unless I specifically recall a question having the tag associated. I almost always do a title search ("unicorn is:question"). | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 5:37 | comment | added | user1027 | Huh, I thought DVK's refrain sounded familiar. | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 5:30 | answer | added | user1027 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 5:26 | history | edited | alexwlchan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 486 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2015 at 5:26 | comment | added | user1027 | @DVK 'Personal harm' isn't relevant, as it's not one of the reasons we keep or remove tags. | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 5:25 | comment | added | alexwlchan | @DVK I’ve tried to expand my explanation, and offered an alternative course of action to take, which will hopefully make the small tags more useful. | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 5:24 | history | edited | alexwlchan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 486 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2015 at 5:06 | history | edited | alexwlchan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 12 characters in body; edited title
|
| Apr 27, 2015 at 2:21 | answer | added | DVK-on-Ahch-To | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 27, 2015 at 2:17 | comment | added | DVK-on-Ahch-To | I don't mean to make it sound personal, but what harm did those tags to do you or your enjoyment of the site, that you seem so keen on having them removed? | |
| Apr 26, 2015 at 22:25 | history | edited | alexwlchan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Apr 26, 2015 at 10:42 | answer | added | ValorumMod | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 26, 2015 at 8:38 | history | asked | alexwlchan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |