That one stack accepts one tag doesn't mean another stack should accept the same tag or a tag like that one. You've said if Cooking has [vegetables] we should have [rules-as-written], but you haven't established why Cooking having [vegetables] means we should have [rules-as-written].
@vicky_molokh I really just think you should choose a tag example from this stack. But I don't think it is that big of a deal. (Though the way you cite it in your example also does make it look like RPG.se has that tag which is a bit misleading)
I also chose 'vegetable' because it's a great example of a category with fuzzy edges. But now I realised that the second common example of such a category is science fiction, and we have it in some spelling or another on the stack.
If I may offer an idea, let's not try to pick the fly poop out of the pepper on the vegetables tag, since the larger point on general tags sometimes having applicability isn't off base, though that particular comparison or analogy may be imperfect. Many are.
Indeed. I did try to stress it was a relatively minor point. But I do think the argument could be improved by correcting it fairly easily which is why I brought it up.
I'm not going to up or downvote based on a nit like that.
I find there to be a meta irony that people are appealing to SE rules as written about tag use to remove a tag called rules as written. Who is laughing with me?
@Rubiksmoose Either way we now have an example that is as fuzzy as vegetables and probably more prone to edge-arguing among nerds (crossed out after seeing @Glazius' post below). science-fiction
"Vegetable" doesn't actually have fuzzy edges when you're cooking, though. A tomato is a vegetable and not a fruit, because it would be disgusting rolled in sugar and put on ice cream.
@Rubiksmoose The problem with that tag was the help piling, and what I saw as the occasional use of that tag as a bludgeon, but I will say nothing further on that topic as the last time I opined on that it went south.
@vicky_molokh I see, I didn't recognise that [vegetables] could be so fuzzy.
But I think at least we can mostly define what it means. Does Cooking.SE regularly see meta tags asking "what on earth is this tag for?" and does it always get five or more completely different answers?
@doppelgreener you need to look inside my refrigerator some time. I am forever finding and removing fuzzy vegetables. Wife will sometimes hide them, accidentally, and then they begin developing sentience.
@doppelgreener Maybe I should remove the cooking link since I'm no expert on the topic, I just know the consistent definition of a vegetable is something that people were never able to give me.
@vicky_molokh ah I didn't notice it 1) because of the formatting snafu (fixed) and 2) because I was expecting it in place of vegetables not in addition to.
@vicky_molokh The appeal to a different stack's different tags is definitely the weakest and least necessary point in your answer, so I would agree with doing that.
@vicky_molokh An edible part of a plant that isn't (botany) a seed or a purpose-built container for seeds (culinary) cooked like a glutenous seed or a sweet purpose-built container for seeds.
@Glazius I'm no expert, but IIRC there is a bunch of things which are/aren't vegetables contrary to your definition. I'm not ready to do the research for which ones though.
In fact I found the preparation, writing and editing of this post on the effort-consuming side and am not sure it was worth it.
@doppelgreener I'm pretty sure there was a time when someone edited my formulae to use a minus instead of a dash. Those minuses are of course not treated as a minus by many parsers. Fun!
one of the practical jokes available to programmers is to define one variable i (the latin letter i) and another variable і (the cyrillic letter и десятеричное) and let the next programmer trying to edit the file try to figure out why their changes aren't working.
it is not an i. It is a ; - used in many programming languages as an instruction terminator... so if you replace it with the other character, the code won't compile.
Yet, it is much funnier to just add a zero-width-space in the middle of an instruction. The code not only will not compile... the error intellisense will be useless in most cases.
To be fair, they had the tag on there, but I removed it. Let's let the meta come to a determination and not have it spill out onto a poor querent's question. Removing it is the best option for now IMO.
Also because what this person is looking for apparently, is rules. And rules don't need a tag. Asking for RAW in the body is good.
Strangely, despite being unclear what future holds, I've come close to accepting the demise of the topic/content marker in question. I still do hope the replacement will get a chance to spread its wings.
@Sdjz Was being not quite serious. Sorry, seems like the cheesy phrasing didn't convey that.
BTW, is this meta a binding vote, or will there be a binding one? Because I recall there was another case where a discussion meta turned out to be treated as a binding referendum, and there was some objection to that.
(Remember from reading about it. I'm pretty sure the actual event predated my arrival.)
This is the binding vote. The objection to that one—speaking as the person who wrote most of the objection—was that it also impacted another tag without anyone being informed.
The moderators had a different understanding of the rules structure from many of the voting users. Exclusively one tag got discussed and voted on, and then two tags got blacklisted because they said the rules that allowed one of them were the same rules that allowed the other and now those rules have been overturned.
So I objected saying that since we hadn't been informed this would happen that second tag shouldn't have been banned or the vote needed a do-over.
Anyway, this vote is determining the fate of one tag only.
Yeah I've seen them pop in a couple of times only.
But likely not. Chat really isn't seen as a way to smooth things over as much as it is for us to talk the issue out. If a serious issue broke out in chat then maybe another mod might pop in if they were needed. In the end, the only relevant action is all on the meta Q&A and this is just tinkering.
I'm not sure how to phrase it, but I feel that today's discussion of the tag did make things smoother on my end, both in terms of how to view the situation and its changes, and how to phrase my reactions to and impressions of it (and post them on meta).
