Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Meta

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

Comments on Should we merge the scope, on-topic and off-topic meta tags?

Parent

Should we merge the scope, on-topic and off-topic meta tags?

+1
−1

This question is based on Ooker's comment:

I suggest us to merge/synonymize the scope, on-topic, off-topic tags

Should we merge these meta tags? I am thinking of merging all of them into the scope one.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

Scope and on-/off-topic are two distinct concepts (1 comment)
Post
+3
−0

Different tag sets per category

It is important to be aware that the Q&A category and the Meta category have distinct sets of tags. This question is about the Meta tags only, which cannot be used in the Q&A category. They simply do not show up there.

Specifically, the following are different (as you can see by following the links):

This generally prevents confusion about what "scope" refers to.

The tags already recommend scope

Note that the question proposes merging tags into Meta's "scope" tag. Those tags already recommend using "scope" instead, so the merge would simply be automating what is already recommended by the tags themselves.

If there is reason to change those existing recommendations, I recommend that be raised as a separate Meta discussion, and that the merging be delayed until that discussion has been resolved one way or other.

Unless someone comments below this post linking to such a discussion, I suggest we go ahead with the merge, because it is already consistent with the wordings of all of the tags involved.

Related tidying

There is also a Meta tag that is a typo of "on-topic" and could be either deleted or merged into the correct spelling:

  • The "ontopic" Meta tag

    For questions or discussions about the scope of the site (i.e. if a question topic is fit for this site or not).


  1. Note that this tag can be used in either the Q&A or the Code Reviews category. The two categories share a tag set. The "scope" tag in the Code Reviews category shows the same posts as the "scope" tag in the Q&A category. ↩︎

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

2 comment threads

"Scope" has more meanings at a meta level as well (3 comments)
Your first section is meta-commentary for Olin’s answer. It belongs in a comment under his answer, no... (3 comments)
"Scope" has more meanings at a meta level as well
Karl Knechtel‭ wrote about 11 hours ago

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.

trichoplax‭ wrote about 4 hours ago

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.

trichoplax‭ wrote about 4 hours ago

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.