8

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 the Editor's Lounge chat room.

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 ( and not )
  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 when I found half of the questions in 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 tag blacklist requests?

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.

| |
4

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

I propose that we :
1. retag all of the questions to
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."

| |
  • Consider the question about "The health policies of many African countries specify that…". A key issue in the question is that the plural "policies" needs to parallel the plural "countries". I therefore tagged this question with parallelism. The proposed guidance does not seem to match this use case. – Jasper Feb 20 '17 at 0:44
  • @Jasper That isn't parallelism as I understand it. Countries doesn't have to parallel policies. "Public health policy in many countries" or "The health policies of a country" both work fine. – ColleenV Feb 20 '17 at 0:52
  • But removing the parallelism changes the meaning to something that the original poster did not intend. – Jasper Feb 20 '17 at 0:56
  • I'm not understanding - It's not parallelism. Your kids are angels. Kids and angels don't match because of parallelism, they match because it's ungrammatical otherwise. Flying is fast, comfortable, and safe. is an example of parallelism. See: literarydevices.net/parallelism – ColleenV Feb 20 '17 at 0:58
4

We have 31 questions tagged with and we should replace that tag with tags that have descriptions, like , , , or .

I also think we should merge with to get rid of it (impacts 7 questions).

I think we should merge into and create a synonym (impacts 80 questions).

I think we should rename to and create a synonym (impacts 12 questions).

The guidance for 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.

| |
3

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


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


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


  • "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."

| |
  • 1
    I looked over questions-v-relatives and I think we want to hang on to it. The questions tagged with it all seem to fit the description "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." Maybe it needs a better name? – ColleenV Apr 11 '17 at 12:31
  • So what do you propose we do about it? – ColleenV Apr 13 '17 at 13:32
  • 1
    @Colleen I think either of [interrogative] or [questions] should go. They're not the same thing, but I don't see why, at the moment, I would need to tag anything tagged with [questions] with [interrogative] as well. It puts the same questions into two different groups. – M.A.R. Apr 13 '17 at 15:39
1

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.

| |
  • Or you could just assign the tag relative-pronouns. I don't understand how this relates to proposals for cleaning up tags. – ColleenV Feb 20 '17 at 1:01
  • @ColleenV I'm quite new here and didn't know one could change a tag assigned by somebody else. I know cleaning up is not the same as correcting tags. I just saw your proposal and thought it was a good opportunity to let people know about the problem of assigning wrong tags. – Gustavson Feb 20 '17 at 1:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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