5

This question is an example:

Why was Hogwarts so adamant about having Harry go there?

It's specifically about an original character, Harry, in an original situation (we're talking book 1).

However, the question is based on or inspired by a concept introduced in the new Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them movie.

Currently, it has both and . The question isn't specifically about the Fantastic Beasts franchise, though.

Another scenario would be reading something on Pottermore, and asking a question about Goblet of Fire based on that reading, not about the Pottermore content itself, but tagging it Pottermore anyway.

There's stuff from the new media in the question, and the answer may reasonably draw upon the new media, but it's technically asking about events in old media or just the "franchise" in general.

So, what should our tagging standards be?

| |
  • Similar discussion: meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/q/9420/31051 – Jason Baker Feb 16 '17 at 19:32
  • @JasonBaker Indeed! I'm worried Fantastic Beasts is going to grow into quite a beast with the planned films, though, compared to Pottermore, and we have an opportunity to avoid the pitfalls of the harry-potter tag. – user31178 Feb 16 '17 at 19:38
  • should there be a tag for 'wizarding-world-of-jk-rowling' (ok - maybe something a little less tedious) instead? In this particular case the question is about HP specifically but it could be that eventually there would be a question that isn't specific to either property explicitly but the universe as a whole - maybe too navel gazey - futureific at this point – NKCampbell Feb 20 '17 at 0:14
  • 1
    @NKCampbell Well, that's what harry-potter was, but that universe unexpectedly exploded and our tags didn't catch up. So, harry-potter is still generic for the entire franchise. – user31178 Feb 20 '17 at 0:31
9

Kill it

I've previous argued (in an discussion about ) that "source" tags only make sense when the question is about that source. That's most consistent with the general purpose of tags:

  • Scope clarification. The scope of a question isn't clarified by knowing what inspired it
  • Ease of searching. I don't have hard evidence to back this supposition up, but I suspect few people would ever want to find questions that were inspired by a particular source (except for when the question is also about that source)
  • Categorization. In the same vein as the other two: there's negligible benefit to indexing questions by their inspirations; I suspect it's something few people would ever need to know

All of this is to say: no, remove from this question; we only have five tags on a question, so let's keep them to things the question is actually about.

| |
  • In fact, I saved everyone the hassle and removed the tag myself – Jason Baker Feb 16 '17 at 19:47
  • Just to be clear, this was just a recent example, and I expect this to come up more. This is your general stance? – user31178 Feb 16 '17 at 19:52
  • @CreationEdge Yes, this is my general stance. To quote the great philosophers, tags should help to describe what the question is about, not just what it contains. – Jason Baker Feb 16 '17 at 19:57
  • I really don't disagree! "Kill it" seems to be a narrow wording to the specific example, though. Additionally, is there any argument to be made that the question is also about the other tag (I don't think so, but is there anyone with an opposing view?) – user31178 Feb 16 '17 at 20:06
  • @CreationEdge There may be an opposing argument; I can't imagine a terribly sensible one, but I'm welcome to being proven wrong – Jason Baker Feb 16 '17 at 20:10
  • I think this is another, then? scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/119886/… – user31178 Feb 17 '17 at 3:33
  • 1
    I believe you actually wanted to say burninate it, not kill it. – Gallifreyan Feb 17 '17 at 12:09
  • I believe the typical counterargument is that tags are/can be/should be viewed as a "bat-signal" for experts. In this case, as I understand it, a FB tag might be useful as a FB expert might be alerted and come in to answer the question. – phantom42 Feb 17 '17 at 17:01
  • 1
    Granted, I'd expect that any one following a FB tag, would likely already be following the HP tag. – phantom42 Feb 17 '17 at 17:01

You must log in to answer this question.