Tag Clean-up Proposals

Question

This question is to get help from the community when you come across a tag that needs reworking. Post an answer with the tags in question and what you think should be done to fix them up. If it involves renaming or making synonyms, I will just do what is proposed unless it seems like it could be controversial.

Feel free to discuss tagging and other editing concerns in chat.

Things to keep in mind from previous discussions:

1. Tags not associated with any question are automatically destroyed at 03:00 UTC every day, so anyone with editing privileges can easily get rid of a tag that has just a few questions.
2. We've settled on plural tag names for nouns (verbs and not verb)
3. Tags should have usage guidance that explains the types of questions the tag should be applied to, so please include the guidance if you're proposing a new tag.
4. It's better to have longer tag names than ambiguous tags. For example, I created letters-of-the-alphabet when I found half of the questions in letters were about correspondence. Even when there is guidance, it sometimes doesn't get read, so tag names should be descriptive.
5. When to burninate
6. How should we make requests to block tags?

I like to try name tags so that they fit into this sentence "This question is about ____." It's not always sensible though, so don't force tags into it.

Answer 1

We have quite a few questions about parallel clauses in sentences and so far I've found two tags on them, both without guidance: parallelism x48 and parallel x5. I would like some feedback on my proposed guidance for parallelism and whether anyone knows of other tags being used for the same sorts of questions.

I propose that we :
1. retag all of the parallel questions to parallelism
2. add the guidance

"For questions about repeating similar constructions in clauses or sentences to make them have more impact on the reader. Parallelism is a writing style choice and not about grammar or correctness."

Answer 2

We have 31 questions tagged with continuous and we should replace that tag with tags that have descriptions, like present-continuous, past-continuous, perfect-continuous, or progressive-aspect.

status-completed I also think we should merge progressive-construction with progressive-aspect to get rid of it (impacts 7 questions).

status-completed I think we should merge present-progressive into present-continuous and create a synonym (impacts 80 questions).

status-completed I think we should rename future-progressive to future-continuous and create a synonym (impacts 12 questions).

status-completed The guidance for future-continuous should read:

For questions about WILL + BE + -ING constructions used to describe future actions that will be unfinished. These actions could have already begun and be continuing into the future or that could begin in the future. Also called future progressive.

Answer 3

Whenever I see a question about . . . questions, I don't know which of these tags to use, depending on the question:

• questions
  "This tag is for inquiries about the grammar and phrasing of questions. (If your question is about anything else, do not use this tag.)"

• interrogative
  "This tag is for inquiries about the interrogative grammatical form, element, or construction, such as would be employed in the formation of a question."

• questions-v-relatives
  "Use this tag for questions which distinguish between uses of wh- forms in questions, with subj-aux inversion, and relative clauses, where there is no inversion."

Answer 4

I totally agree. The worst thing is that some questions are assigned an incorrect tag. If the site is intended to guide students in the learning of the language, assigning the tag "Conjunctions" to a question that is exclusively about relative pronouns (see this: "of which" vs. "that") is misleading. In case of doubt, a tag like "Connectives" or "Linking words" should be available.