Skip to main content
Puzzling

Return to Answer

added 1 character in body
Source Link
Prince North Læraðr
Prince North Læraðr
  • 4.1k
  • 6
  • 11
  • What is this tag for?
  • When do I use this tag?
  • What is this tag for
  • When do I use this tag?
  • What is this tag for?
  • When do I use this tag?
sorry the wall of text was bothering me
Source Link
bobble
bobble
  • 10.6k
  • 9
  • 35

Despite everything that was seen above, give the benefit of the doubt. We'll probably run into a situation where something similar might arise, where some change is made to the tags. If the change is small enough, and the small edit does add some information, just accept it. (This is mostly so I don't get in trouble from Literature SE for adding birth/death years on authors and making small edits). The BEST thing you can do is actually "edit and accept". Maybe the edit they made was good, but it was phrased poorly so it was too long. 

But what happens if this keeps on happening? What if a user perpetually makes small tiny edits (presumably) for easy rep? Well, let's consider the edits they're making. If it's the same sort of edits that are consistently superfluous, even to the point that the user needs to add an empty HMTL line, that's the time to reject, but add a specific note why you rejected that edit. If this keeps on being a problem, flag a moderator down (literally, using the in need of moderator flag on say, one of Deusovi's comments), and write that X user is perpetually making small superfluous edits, and if they can just talk to them about it. Alternatively, if they're active on the Sphinx, just directly message them there. As an aside, I'd suggest that any edit that needs empty HTML lines to surpass the edit minimum count limit should just be rejected. That's the definition of "superfluous". Be wise, be fair, but assume the best of people.

Despite everything that was seen above, give the benefit of the doubt. We'll probably run into a situation where something similar might arise, where some change is made to the tags. If the change is small enough, and the small edit does add some information, just accept it. (This is mostly so I don't get in trouble from Literature SE for adding birth/death years on authors and making small edits). The BEST thing you can do is actually "edit and accept". Maybe the edit they made was good, but it was phrased poorly so it was too long. But what happens if this keeps on happening? What if a user perpetually makes small tiny edits (presumably) for easy rep? Well, let's consider the edits they're making. If it's the same sort of edits that are consistently superfluous, even to the point that the user needs to add an empty HMTL line, that's the time to reject, but add a specific note why you rejected that edit. If this keeps on being a problem, flag a moderator down (literally, using the in need of moderator flag on say, one of Deusovi's comments), and write that X user is perpetually making small superfluous edits, and if they can just talk to them about it. Alternatively, if they're active on the Sphinx, just directly message them there. As an aside, I'd suggest that any edit that needs empty HTML lines to surpass the edit minimum count limit should just be rejected. That's the definition of "superfluous". Be wise, be fair, but assume the best of people.

Despite everything that was seen above, give the benefit of the doubt. We'll probably run into a situation where something similar might arise, where some change is made to the tags. If the change is small enough, and the small edit does add some information, just accept it. (This is mostly so I don't get in trouble from Literature SE for adding birth/death years on authors and making small edits). The BEST thing you can do is actually "edit and accept". Maybe the edit they made was good, but it was phrased poorly so it was too long. 

But what happens if this keeps on happening? What if a user perpetually makes small tiny edits (presumably) for easy rep? Well, let's consider the edits they're making. If it's the same sort of edits that are consistently superfluous, even to the point that the user needs to add an empty HMTL line, that's the time to reject, but add a specific note why you rejected that edit. If this keeps on being a problem, flag a moderator down (literally, using the in need of moderator flag on say, one of Deusovi's comments), and write that X user is perpetually making small superfluous edits, and if they can just talk to them about it. Alternatively, if they're active on the Sphinx, just directly message them there. As an aside, I'd suggest that any edit that needs empty HTML lines to surpass the edit minimum count limit should just be rejected. That's the definition of "superfluous". Be wise, be fair, but assume the best of people.

Source Link
Prince North Læraðr
Prince North Læraðr
  • 4.1k
  • 6
  • 11

TL;DR

Tag wiki edits should reflect the bare minimum of what the tag is and when it should be used. Tag information about how not to use it should only be added as a preventive measure of a perpetual problem, or a meta update.

As someone who has been writing tag excerpts for Literature SE since... April (?) I can speak with a bit of experience.

A tag wiki excerpt is supposed to be short, but give proper information about how a tag should and should not be used. For example, here is an example (from PSE's site) of a good tag wiki excerpt:

  • : "A puzzle that heavily depends on linguistic features; for instance, it may concern foreign languages, or only work in some particular language, or be built around a peculiarity of the English language."

It's not too short that it's ambiguous, but it's not too long that it becomes redundant or gives the "wall of text" effect. It answers the two essential questions of the tag excerpt:

  • What is this tag for
  • When do I use this tag?

In this case, the tag is clearly for "puzzles that heavily depend on linguistic features", and then gives some nice, clear examples such as "foreign languages", "work in some particular language" or "peculiarity of the English language". It's perfect. Here's another great tag:

  • : "A puzzle related to mathematical facts and objects, whose solution needs mathematical arguments. General mathematics questions are off-topic but can be asked on Mathematics Stack Exchange."

This is also a great tag. It answers the "what" is this tag, and "when" people should use this tag. The second portion "general mathematics question...." is highly relevant for this site- this site gets a ton of just ordinary "math" problems, or "textbook math problems", which are NOT allowed for this site. Now, let's look at a poorly edited tag here:

  • : "Puzzles that crucially depend on some feature of the English language or that only work in an English formulation. General English questions are off-topic but can be asked on our sister sites English Language & Usage Stack Exchange or English Language Learners Stack Exchange (depending on the level)."

There are a few problems with this tag. First, it does answer the "what" portion as well as the "when" portion, but it fails to distinguish between when I should use "English" versus just , or what makes it different from the general tag. The second biggest issue though is this portion:

  • "General English questions are off-topic but can be asked on our sister sites English Language & Usage Stack Exchange or English Language Learners Stack Exchange (depending on the level)."

This is irrelevant. The reason why the excerpt doesn't need this is simple: Puzzling Stack Exchange does not get questions about the English language. The description of how not to use the tag in the is acceptable because it addresses a problem that is an issue in PSE. It adds something meaningful to clarify and address a problem on this site. New users sometimes confuse between what seems to be a math puzzle as opposed to a math word problem.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure we've never gotten a question about the English language here, or at least, it definitely isn't a problem. That's because users aren't stupid. When they see a Puzzling site, they're not going to ask a question about the meaning of a word in X sentence or whatnot. This could be an issue over at Literature SE, or a question about the meaning of a word in a book asked in English Learner's SE, but people don't confuse this site for an English site.

I think the only tag that needs the "don't ask questions about X here" should only apply for the tag. People don't ask about chord progressions here, people don't ask about how tall Mount Everest is or who wrote Finnigan Wake.

The General Principle

These are just my personal suggestions on a sort of rough "criteria" for tag excerpt wikis:

  • It needs to be short. If it's longer than three sentences, it's already too long. You know the tag is getting long when the color on "characters left" changes.

It needs to answer the 5 W's and H.

  • Who should use this tag?
  • What is this tag about?
  • When should this tag be used?
  • Where should this tag be used and where should it not be used?
  • Why should this tag be used?
  • How should this tag be used?

Now, you realize that many of these questions are redundant. For example, the "when", "where", and "how" are basically the answering something, the "who" is implied in the "when" or "what" (people asking questions about this question) and the "why" is also usually implied with the "when" or "where".

The Folly of Preventing Confusion in the "Future"

One argument I supposed one could make is "well, these edits are necessary, it'll prevent users from being confused about when and where to ask these questions!" This is fallacious. As I stated above, people aren't going to be asking "What is the motif of blood in Macbeth?" in a Puzzling Site. If someone does ask that, we assume they probably asked it in the wrong place. Not only that, but these off-topic questions would get migrated over to the respective site! These tag edits that say "Questions about X are off-topic, ask them at Y SE" actively harm readability. In tag excerpts, shorter is better, and the information you add better be very important or necessary.

A Note for the Reviewers

Despite everything that was seen above, give the benefit of the doubt. We'll probably run into a situation where something similar might arise, where some change is made to the tags. If the change is small enough, and the small edit does add some information, just accept it. (This is mostly so I don't get in trouble from Literature SE for adding birth/death years on authors and making small edits). The BEST thing you can do is actually "edit and accept". Maybe the edit they made was good, but it was phrased poorly so it was too long. But what happens if this keeps on happening? What if a user perpetually makes small tiny edits (presumably) for easy rep? Well, let's consider the edits they're making. If it's the same sort of edits that are consistently superfluous, even to the point that the user needs to add an empty HMTL line, that's the time to reject, but add a specific note why you rejected that edit. If this keeps on being a problem, flag a moderator down (literally, using the in need of moderator flag on say, one of Deusovi's comments), and write that X user is perpetually making small superfluous edits, and if they can just talk to them about it. Alternatively, if they're active on the Sphinx, just directly message them there. As an aside, I'd suggest that any edit that needs empty HTML lines to surpass the edit minimum count limit should just be rejected. That's the definition of "superfluous". Be wise, be fair, but assume the best of people.

Happy Puzzling!