I think that even in a meta sense, "scope" doesn't just describe topicality. It also describes whether a question is properly focused, versus being too broad. That is, whether it asks about the right amount of situations. One could debate, for example, whether to generalize a question to cover all random-access container types in a programming language, in light of someone finding an additional solution that only works with some of them.

I agree that the English word "scope" has more meanings than the tag description currently defines, and that more than one of those meanings could be relevant to discussions on Meta.

I see this similarly to the "python" tag in the other categories. It has more meanings than just the programming language, but the tag description makes clear what it is for. If I have a question about Rust code for detecting pythons in satellite imagery, I'll use the "rust" tag but not the "python" tag. That is, I'll decide based on the tag description, not the dictionary definition.

It may be that there is a better word to use for a Meta tag concerning what is on topic for the other categories, and a better word to use for a Meta tag concerning whether the scope of a specific question is too broad (as opposed to being off topic). Alternatively, it may be that the community prefers to extend the scope of the "scope" tag to include both purposes. I've suggested this be the topic of a separate Meta question.

I'm only suggesting the Meta tag merge go ahead if no such Meta question is raised, since the current tag descriptions have existed long term with no objection until this merge was proposed.

site-scope might have been a better name for the meta tag.

It's never too late to suggest a change (and currently it wouldn't even be that much work). I wonder if community-scope would fit (since "site" could mean the community or the Codidact network). Maybe [category]-scope for communities with different categories (here q&a-scope and code-reviews-scope could work).

I'll support the [category]-scope idea. Just as long as nobody reaches the point where tagging a post as meta-scope ever seems like a good idea!

[category-scope] sounds good to me since unique tags apparently exist based on category.

This can vary by community, but in the case of Software Development Codidact there are only 2 tag sets: one for Meta, and one that is shared by Q&A and Code Reviews.

This is subject to change if someone raises a Meta discussion arguing they should have distinct tag sets, but otherwise the 2 categories have the same tags. In particular, editing a tag description in Q&A will also change the description in Code Reviews.

They still have distinct scopes though.

trichoplax‭ On the Electrical Engineering there's site/category scope, as well as all the programmer meanings, as well as "scope" being very common slang for oscilloscope :) I think all sites probably benefit from at least keeping the tags of meta separate from the rest of the categories.

trichoplax‭ The acceptable scope for a given section of a given community isn't defined in terms of its tag set, in my view - tags, and whether or not they're shared with another section, are a red herring. A tag that describes a technology doesn't sufficiently describe a question to know whether it's in scope; it may also matter what OP is doing with the technology.

This is especially the case for things like cryptocurrency, where a tag might refer to a technology but also to business domain knowledge. We could accept a question about writing the code for smart contracts, but not one about their purpose within the context of an economic system.

As for tag descriptions, if two categories share a tag with different scope, the description should link to meta that discusses how the tag is meant to be used in each section and what is in scope for the tag in each section.