Also if we could stop worrying about what might be asked and remember that it has yet to be

@Charlie Brumbaugh I looked through the first reference you listed, and while it would have been tedious to read the graphs carefully enough to plug in the correct values into the formula, it would not have been difficult. It would be more interesting to see if the formula gives the correct value for cheetahs. I'll play around with cheetahs on the weekend. As for where the dino tracks were found, Culpeper is on the way from my house to Shenandoah.

@ab2 I though the first formula was u = 0.25(SL1.67)(H-1.17)(g0.5) with g being the gravitational constant

@Charlie Brumbaugh Equation 5 in the article has the same variables but is slightly different. The authors say it is applicable over a wide range of dinosaur sizes.

Yesterday turned out to not be quite so awesome

Also I put a lot of time into the T-Rex question

@Liam, I just noticed the hunting tag was added to your question about photographing the kingfisher, outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/19148, but not by you. Did you mean for it to be a hunting question? I'm asking in case the tag edit was a mistake, especially because future viewers with the hunting tag hidden won't even see it. I had already seen and upvoted both the awesome question and the answer, and I don't want others to miss their chance! Thanks!

@Sue Apparently according to the wiki, the hunting tag covers photo hunting as well as shooting hunting

maybe we should split it, but if we are going by the wiki, then its the correct tag

and if a tag means something is on topic then the photography tag needs to go

Not sure if this is spam, but lets delete it outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/7105/8794

Voted to delete.

@CharlieBrumbaugh Part of life.

What's the voting corrected thing though?

@CharlieBrumbaugh Can you please stop re-tagging all my questions

@Sue Thanks for the heads up sue

Seriously @CharlieBrumbaugh is there any question that you haven't altered the tags on?! FFS leave them alone...

At least read the help on tagging outdoors.stackexchange.com/help/tagging

Guys, older questions are getting bumped up due to this tagging retagging. Can you guys not retag unless absolutely necessary?

@RoryAlsop @Liam I put an awful amount of work into retagging and organizing the questions around here and now Liam is undoing just parts of that so that things are becoming worse and more disorganized I am not going to do any rollbacks but this is extremely aggravating

For instance all the dog and wolf and robin and crow and raven questions used to have their own tags

It used to be that if you wanted the whets questions on scope you had too use three different tags to do so

THe reason things are as organized as they are right now is because I took the time to hunt down questions and properly apply tags

instead of using sunglasses for swim goggles

or having both uk and united-kingdom

and even taking the time to rebump things

both [fire] and [wood] on the same questions over and over without ever considering that [firewood] is a thing

@Liam Youre acting like you own the tags and only you get to decidewhich ones are used and that's not how it works. All of the big edits were done months ago and now youre coming in and acting all upset because it's not the way you think it should be or something

All of 16 o the questions asking is x edible used to have one tag but not anymore

all seven of the crows

8 of the robin questions

Now we have both an animal tracks and tracking tags

4 of the raven questions

We are back once again to having 3 tags for discussing whether something is on topic or not

instead of just one

@Ricketyship Somebody got excited and upvoted a bunch of my posts in quick succession so the system undid them all

@CharlieBrumbaugh I've a question on tagging. Help me understand the issue here. outdoors.stackexchange.com/questions/9573/… for this question, you added crows and ravens as tags? And @Liam reverted them. Adding more tags might cause more confusion on on-off topic. No?

@Ricketyship The point of adding those tags was that if someone wanted to read other questions about crows or ravens they could use the tags

But birds was left to keep the genergal tag there because neither of those tags have enough questions to be on their own

@CharlieBrumbaugh So in short what you are saying is, on some questions you added explicit tags and on some others, you removed unwanted tags eg: fire and wood.

@Ricketyship Thats the description of it

Ok. I don't see any problem with that. However, to have hunting as a tag on the Kingfisher question is a stretch. We need to edit the tag to remove the photo hunting as a part of hunting tag.

> As a general rule, you should avoid creating new tags if possible

outdoors.stackexchange.com/help/tagging

> You should re-tag questions when:

> You are adding valuable information to the question by doing so

> You are replacing obscure or difficult to understand tags with well-known and popular tags that are appropriate for the question.

How is does adding hunting to this question meet any of the above

It was clearly an attempt to deface my questions

@Liam From the tag wiki

Scouting, tracking, pursuing, and killing animals for sport and/or food. Also to include photohunting (where a camera is used instead of a gun).

I don't own tagging, but neither do you. There are rules

@Liam I think it's because hunting tag description specifically mentions photo hunting.

what the hell is photohunting?!

I don't know @Liam :D

@Liam Sneaking up on animals to take their photos

Exactly

I would say we need to edit the description of the tag. It makes no sense to keep the description of photos under hunting.

@Ricketyship Done

@Liam Whats the advantage of having three tags for discussing scope?

@CharlieBrumbaugh That makes the crows and raven tags even more difficult to defend.

@CharlieBrumbaugh I would appreciate it if from now on you did not re-tag any of my questions.

@Liam You don't get to have your questions be disorganizaed from the rest

I'm perfectly happy with how the tagging system works. I've been a member of SE sites for 8 years and TBH I don't want nor need your help

thanks

@CharlieBrumbaugh that is your opinion of disorganisation that I fundermentally disagree with. Unless you can build consensus using Meta I don't want you doing it. I've asked nicely

We either say we keep generic tags and add a good description under the wiki, or we keep specific tags for each category like ravens and crows and whatnot. Applies for photography as well. If we go for specific tags like crows ravens and all, we should allow photography and hunting to be different and photography cannot be part of hunting.

> As a general rule, you should avoid creating new tags if possible

I mean I keep repeating myself

outdoors.stackexchange.com/help/tagging

Does anyone even know what the tags do?

@Liam I agree Liam. Hence I was not really keen on the tags like dogs and all. I've spoken about it before as well.

Should we burn everything less specific than climbing, gear, and animals?

@Ricketyship Hey, I'm sorry, I'm not arguing with you. @CharlieBrumbaugh had annoyed me yeateday and today with various actions on tagging and I've had enough

@CharlieBrumbaugh I am no longer feeding the troll.

Lets agree on a middle ground. Need not be just 3-5 tags. Need not be all the animals and birds and plants on earth either.

@Liam No worries.

@RoryAlsop I am done for a while, I am not going to put many hours on many different nights to make the site better only to be called a troll for my pains. All of these edits were done months ago, and people could have spoken up a long time ago if just to save me the trouble

Guys, I understand that both of you put in a lot of efforts. Lets not belittle each other because of these issues. I've asked a meta outdoors.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1183/… Let the community decide what's right.

@Ricketyship hey, I already have a meta question about this subject

I know @Liam. But the question is too specific to one tag (thereby the answers are also super specific dinos and fossils as of now). We had a discussion the other day as well regarding how cattle could cover cows and what not and why cows is not a tag in itself. We should try to see how on a larger scale we can merge tags.

Feel free to ignore the question I asked. If you get time, you can express your opinion on why specific tags could lead to issues. I'll still keep the question open as of now. I'll edit the question to provide a link to your question as well.

My personal view is having multiple tags or specific tags is a hindrance as it is virtually impossible to manage after some time.

@CharlieBrumbaugh the 130 must be a deleted post?

@Liam Question. If tags help SEO, would a crows tag not improve the traffic for the site? Because if someone is searching for what to feed crows, then a bird-feeding tag might be less helpful than a crow tag?

@Ricketyship If that crows tag contains one question then no

If it contains lots of questions then yes

It's a about link concentration

Weight for each tag I suppose?

Also if that one questions is referenced by lots of other pages then this helps, if those other pages also only contain that one link then it gets marked down

It's an attempt to stop people gaming the system

Got it.

@Liam and @CharlieBrumbaugh sorry if I came across rude during this discussion. Didn't mean so. And I hope both of you can reconcile. I'm sure neither means any harm for the other. Difference in opinion is not a bad thing to have. Logging off now. Have a good day Liam, Charlie!

@Liam and @CharlieBrumbaugh - I understand you may both be annoyed at the other, but please realise you both are trying to do good things - I don't see anything that suggests otherwise

@RoryAlsop Yes agree

I am annoyed at this

I tried to be resonabled

The result was a re-tagging of dinosaur to dinosaurs like really?!

I even said thanks

To have it thrown in my face

Then this happened

Which I'm taking as vandalism of my question

these are my gripes. An apology or explanation and I can move on

Not and it's fine I'll just not interact with Charlie

As far as I'm concerned I've tried to be reasonable