9

We have individual character tags like , , etc. Keeping personal feelings apart, they are allowed by community. Then there have been dual tags for a single character (now fixed). But my concern is, if we have individual character tags, then do we really need general character tags too?

We have:

I am skipping because of its usefulness.

So do we really need individual character tags and general character tags both?

If yes

Then is it a good idea to have 5 general character tags, or should we merge them all into something clear? Like merging all of them under ?

I kept the new tag suggestion singular intentionally

| |
  • 5
    @Ixrec - I'm still waiting for the tiniest scrap of evidence that retagging stuff helps anyone. – Valorum Jun 22 '16 at 7:40
  • 3
    @Valorum Tag standardization is helpful believe it or not. – Alec Lightwood Jun 22 '16 at 7:43
  • 8
    @Valorum Retagging can and should result in a more searchable, consistent database of questions and answers. Being as that is the only thing that SE is meant to be, it's a worthwhile exercise if done properly. – Dr R Dizzle Jun 22 '16 at 7:53
  • I am voting to close this because it's too broad. You are asking about 5 different tags and the answers for those 5 tags might be different (personally, I think at least 3 of them should be deleted, and 2 are iffy and borderline). – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jun 22 '16 at 13:54
  • 1
    @DrRDizzle - you're contradicting yourself. Removing classes of tags that people find useful (which is your position, not just cleanup, based on your answer) can NEVER result in "a more searchable, consistent database of questions and answers". Either stop complaining about tags, or don't use the quoted end goal as your excuse. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jun 22 '16 at 13:56
  • 1
    @DVK-in-exile A fair point, but at the end of the day, character tags are only employed some of the time for certain characters/works - that doesn't help either searchability or consistency, both of which are important when you want to find questions you may be interested in. I genuinely believe their removal would be a net benefit for the site. – Dr R Dizzle Jun 22 '16 at 14:09
  • 2
    @DrRDizzle - it helps people who aren't you. Stop asserting absolutes that aren't based in reality. You personally don't find them helpful - so ignore them. Live and let live. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jun 22 '16 at 14:10
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Null♦ Jun 22 '16 at 14:14
  • 1
    @DVK-in-exile Say I'm a new user to the site, and I want to read about Han Solo. I find and click the han-solo tag. That doesn't give me all of the questions involving Han Solo, as not all of them are tagged correctly. Later, I want to learn more about Qui-Gon Jinn. There is no Qui-Gon Jinn tag. As a new user, the inconsistency of the creation of character tags and when they are applied has stopped me from finding the questions/answers I want to find. – Dr R Dizzle Jun 22 '16 at 14:14
  • @DrRDizzle - (1) New users are far less likely to be interested in a character tags in the first place (you typically need to see Han Solo questions as an expert answerer to refer to existing content). (2) having less-perfect tag is better than having no tag at all. because simply searching for "han solo" will get you 500% more posts than intended most of which merely mention Solo by accident and aren't about him. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Jun 22 '16 at 15:44
  • Let's add a tag for each of Sauron's names! See scifi.stackexchange.com/q/93296/4918 "Is there a list of the names used for Sauron in Lord of the Rings?" – b_jonas Jun 28 '16 at 9:27
  • @b_jonas and it will be great if never make them synonym and use them like a mess ;) – Alec Lightwood Jun 28 '16 at 9:43
  • One thing I think would be worrying is how character tags COULD create spoilers. hypothetical example: In Game of Thrones, something big happens to a character, and a question is asked. With the generic title "What does this character say before..." and Game of Thrones tag, people can just about avoid any spoilers. If a character's name tag is also present, spoilers could occur. I know, it's impossible to completely no-spoiler a question though, even in generic titles to a degree. – sequoiad Jun 30 '16 at 16:22
  • 1
    @Valorum As the OP says in the newer question, "I have discussed this before but it was a little broad and came with no proper conclusion. So I am bringing the major part of it back as a new question". It was literally intended as a clarified re-post of this question. – Rand al'Thor♦ May 13 '19 at 8:22
  • 3
    @Valorum No, they're both about the same 5 tags. You should read more than just the first sentence of this question to understand what it's about. – Rand al'Thor♦ May 13 '19 at 8:27
6

We don't need character tags at all, never mind the meta tags you've listed in the question.

Anyone who has listened to my whining about this before can skip this, because I'm just banging the same drum I have been for some time now. Still;

The best way we could approach tagging on this site would be from the perspective of what I've just now decided to call the Individual to Broad hierarchy. The basic concept is that we tag based on the individual work(s) the question is about, the franchise those works belong to (if required), and then the (again, if required) the over-riding intellectual property on which the work/franchise is based.

Using a hypothetical question about The Dark Knight as an example, we would tag that as , and then (as the over-riding intellectual property, NOT the name of the character).

In just three tags, we cover people interested in any of the possible levels at which they may want to see this question. People looking for questions about The Dark Knight find it, people looking for questions about Nolan's trilogy find it, and people interested in anything to do with the intellectual property of Batman find it too.

Obviously, not all of these "levels" of tagging will be required in every instance - for example, a question about Futurama would only have one tag as that show doesn't belong to a larger franchise or intellectual property (at least as far as I'm aware).

In conclusion - no we definitely don't need the general character tags (which are meta tags) that you've highlighted there. But we also don't need specific character tags either.

| |
-1

You ask, do we really need individual character tags and general character tags both?

Think about it from the perspective of shows/movies/books rather than characters.

If we have , , , etc, do we really need ?

My answer is, in most cases, yes.*

There are questions about aspects that are shared across the general category, not just the individual.

* Some "general" tags may not be necessary, but in general, they are useful.

| |
  • 2
    You missed to address most of the part from question. If yes then is it right idea to have 5 general charter tags? Is it not right to merge them into something clear? – Alec Lightwood Jun 22 '16 at 8:00
  • Those are works of the genre which are a full universe in themselves. Individual characters as a rule are not something so deep and unique that they need a separate tag from the Work they belong too. – Aegon Aug 1 '16 at 9:17
-2

We absolutely need some character tags.

It is a tricky subject to address on meta because it needs to be handled on a case by case basis. The intellectual property called "SupermanTM" is different from the character named Clark Kent/Kal-El. No character should have more than one character tag that isn't also the franchise name, though. If we choose to have a (franchise) and a (character), no allowed.

Generally, we can't get rid of them altogether as one answer suggested.
We have enough Gandalf questions to start a new SE. Same goes for Batman questions. Things aren't perfect the way they are, but the site also isn't kerploding.

The generic character tags you mention are mostly crap.

| |
  • 1
    So what about those 6 generic character tags , do we need them too? – Alec Lightwood Jun 29 '16 at 5:54
  • clark-kent is one vote away from being synonymized. – Molag Bal Jun 29 '16 at 8:57
  • 1
    @AnkitSharma Seeing how users repeatedly fail to adress your point of various generic character tags and how the question about specific charcter tags has already been discussed at length not too long ago (and is a huge contention point on this site in general), it might be more fruitful to make a separate meta post that concentrates only on the issue of all the generic character tags and how to deal with them or synonymize them, under the premise that many specific character tags won't go away in the near future (which seems to be current consensus). – TARS Jun 29 '16 at 11:13
  • @Cahir The issue of the generic character tags already seems to be the main point of this meta post; he just mentioned individual character tags as part of the motivation for his question about generic ones. (FWIW, answering this meta question is on my to-do list.) – Rand al'Thor♦ Jun 29 '16 at 11:47
  • 2
    @Randal'Thor Granted. But then that doesn't really seem to come through to many of the answerers, who concentrate on the entirely irrelevant aspect of the question. Maybe a little edit would at least be in order. – TARS Jun 29 '16 at 11:50
  • 1
    @Cahir That's their problem though, not Ankit's. – Rand al'Thor♦ Jun 29 '16 at 11:51
  • 1
    @Randal'Thor Not if it might be helped by a little streamlining of the question maybe. – TARS Jun 29 '16 at 11:51
  • @CahirMawrDyffrynæpCeallach I did many changes already to make it clear. I don't know how bold point get missed. – Alec Lightwood Jun 29 '16 at 12:16

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