Timeline for Why were tags for [tagged-pdf] removed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2020 at 13:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:34 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://tex.stackexchange.com/ with https://tex.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:18 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Dec 18, 2014 at 8:27 | history | edited | Charles Stewart | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fix spelling, formatting
|
| Dec 18, 2014 at 8:25 | answer | added | Charles Stewart | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 7:47 | vote | accept | Charles Stewart | ||
| Dec 18, 2014 at 5:59 | comment | added | slhck Mod | @fixer1234 Thanks for the clarification. Your explanation makes sense and I can understand why you acted this way. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 5:30 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @slhck - In this case, it wasn't removing tags someone applied to their own question, it was rejecting an edit where someone wanted to change someone else's tag and replace it with one that would have limited response to the question. If this was inappropriate, please advise. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 1:57 | answer | added | fixer1234 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 18:09 | comment | added | Raystafarian | I agree with the above, there's no reason on this site for it to have its own tag, but with the effort you put into your write up, perhaps it would be useful to be put into the [pdf] tag. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 16:10 | comment | added | slhck Mod | I don't know how many questions we had on SU with this, but it does seem a little odd to go ahead and remove the tags someone else applied without consulting the community for feedback (that is, going through our normal tag cleanup process). Clearly everyone's free to remove absolutely unnecessary tags, or meta tags, but in that case, it's a bit of a grey area on whether the tag is needed or not. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 15:59 | comment | added | Oliver Salzburg Mod |
Either we have widely differing interpretations of the word "frequently" or am I'm missing something about the topic at hand here. Such a small amount of questions does not necessitate a separate tag, no matter how extensive the wiki for the tag would be. It would be just as well to have a canonical question about the topic or to stuff the information into the [pdf] tag wiki.
|
|
| Dec 17, 2014 at 15:54 | comment | added | Charles Stewart | @OliverSalzburg The tag brings together FAQ answers that I have referred to. It helps organise the existing content of SO and tex.sx. The tag wiki was approved here on SU. Have you any interest in PDF metadata? | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 15:24 | comment | added | Oliver Salzburg Mod | Without looking too deep into this matter, I can say this: There are a total of 10 questions which have this tag spread over 2 sites. There is really no need for it to exist, it doesn't help anyone. | |
| Dec 17, 2014 at 15:11 | history | edited | Charles Stewart | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Link to SO and tex.sx
|
| Dec 17, 2014 at 15:04 | history | asked | Charles Stewart | CC BY-SA 3.0 |