Timeline for Use of the [extension] tag
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9, 2012 at 10:18 | history | edited | slhckMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 70 characters in body
|
| Nov 8, 2012 at 18:16 | comment | added | slhck Mod | @tempy We can ask developers to remove tags when we've disambiguated them, yes. Would be a good idea. | |
| Nov 8, 2012 at 16:21 | comment | added | tempy |
@slhck While going over the [extension] tag questions, I noticed there is a similar tag - [addons], which is also useless (see this question). After we will be done going over [extension] and [addons] we can probably delete both tags.
|
|
| Nov 7, 2012 at 22:13 | comment | added | slhck Mod | @tempy I'm afraid this is not possible with the tagging system either. We'll have to go through the tags manually. Already down from 72 to 57. We'd welcome any edit suggestions to remove those if you have the time to fix up these posts. | |
| Nov 7, 2012 at 22:00 | vote | accept | tempy | ||
| Nov 7, 2012 at 22:00 | comment | added | tempy |
@slhck Of course. Will you automatically re-tag questions with [browser-name][extension] to [browser-name-extensions]?
|
|
| Nov 7, 2012 at 21:55 | comment | added | slhck Mod | @tempy Unfortunately no. The tag system isn't that clever. But I'll make it IE-extensions anyway. Better than nothing right? | |
| Nov 7, 2012 at 21:54 | comment | added | tempy |
@slhck Yeah, I think it's fine, ie is already a synonym of all the [internet-explorer] tags. Is it possible to make [ie-extensions] show up when typing internet-explorer (when tagging a question)?
|
|
| Nov 7, 2012 at 21:35 | comment | added | slhck Mod |
@tempy Turns out, tag scan only have 25 characters. We therefore need to find an alternative… [ie-extensions] maybe?
|
|
| Nov 7, 2012 at 21:13 | comment | added | tempy | @slhck Okay. Can you also create [internet-explorer-extensions]? (for example, this question from just couple of days ago should be tagged with [internet-explorer-extensions] rather than [internet-explorer-9][extension]. | |
| Nov 7, 2012 at 13:18 | comment | added | slhck Mod |
@tempy I created a synonym mapping from [browser-extensions] to [browser-addons]. If you want to help re-tag the remaining [extension] questions in smaller chunks, feel free to do so (but please if check the rest of the post needs improvements as well).
|
|
| Nov 5, 2012 at 15:44 | comment | added | tempy | @Sathya This question is tagged with [browser][extension] instead of [browser-addons], for example. First of all, I think it should be renamed to [browser-extensions], because all the other extensions-related tags use "extension" and not "addon". Also, since there is already [browser-addons] tag then I think we should either remove the [extension] tag or rename it to [application-extension] (the only use I can think of for an extension that is not for a browser). | |
| Nov 5, 2012 at 5:21 | comment | added | Sathyajith Bhat Mod | btw we have a browser-addons for generic web browser extensions /cc @tempy | |
| Nov 2, 2012 at 23:24 | comment | added | tempy | @Josh I think you have a point though. Today many extensions have a Chrome version and a Firefox version, and are not exclusive to Firefox as they used to be. I like the idea of [browser-extension][browser-name]. Many people look for a certain extension and they don't care if it's for FF or Chrome - but adding an additional general browser-extensions tag is not better than tagging this kind of questions with both [google-chrome-extensions] and [firefox-extensions] (which I don't think is good). | |
| Nov 2, 2012 at 17:23 | comment | added | JoshP | @slhck, gotcha. For some reason I have this compulsion to have as few tags defined as possible :) But I get what you're saying. | |
| Nov 2, 2012 at 17:20 | comment | added | slhck Mod | @Josh Interesting approach. Would never have thought about that. But on the other hand, combined tag searches are rarely used, plus the system makes it rather hard to follow tag combinations on-site, so I'd rather stick with tags that are specific enough on their own. | |
| Nov 2, 2012 at 17:18 | comment | added | JoshP | @slhck, and if that (I like that), do you then need the [browser-specific-extension] at all? At that point you could get by with [browser-extension][firefox] and get the point across. | |
| Nov 2, 2012 at 17:15 | comment | added | slhck Mod |
Good question… I guess we could create [browser-extension] for that.
|
|
| Nov 2, 2012 at 15:52 | comment | added | tempy | There are also questions that refer to application extensions (like this one) - I think that the application name tag would be sufficient. Also, what about generic browser extensions question, where the author doesn't ask about a specific browser (like this question)? | |
| Nov 2, 2012 at 15:35 | history | answered | slhckMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |