I would like to suggest to rename the -tag into , analogue to the -tag.

  • I'd be concerned that there might be other items that use attachments, not just emails. Can you provide some example questions? – Burgi Jul 31 at 12:06
  • @Burgi you are right, mostly it refers to email attachments, but there are (very few) references to "attachments" with other software (e.g. Evernote). So what now? Add another tag (email-attachments) or change my (suggested) wiki entry to a broader definition? – Albin Jul 31 at 12:12
  • 1
    It's great that you're thinking about these issues. In most cases, if you want to recommend improving tags, you need to lay out the case more fully. Describe how the tag is currently used and the problems associated with that usage. Suggest a comprehensive plan for how to deal with all of the needed changes -- what new tags are needed, what usage gets changed to what new tag, etc. – fixer1234 Jul 31 at 17:19
  • @fixer1234 as I wrote in my comment under Mokubai's answer, initially I "just" noticed there was no wiki entry and I thought it is worth fixing. I'm not sure I'm qualified to suggest a viable plan, since I don't have much knowledge yet about goals and (past) procedures on tag improvement. I would rather start fixing the initial problem, the "missing description" before I make any "big suggestions". I'm not sure, what do you think? – Albin Jul 31 at 18:29
  • Everybody starts somewhere. Starting is the important part. :-) – fixer1234 Jul 31 at 19:07
  • Could you add the tags tag? – Zackary Jul 31 at 19:23
  • @Zackary Not sure what you mean, do you refer to the title of the question? – Albin Jul 31 at 19:29
  • @Albin I mean to edit the question and and tags as one of the tags. – Zackary Jul 31 at 19:32
  • @Zackary done, is that what you meant? – Albin Jul 31 at 19:34
  • @Albin Yes, it is. – Zackary Jul 31 at 20:34

Given the abuse that the tag has been subjected to a simple rename is not going to be possible. It needs an active post-by-post cleanup.

For example:

There are a lot of questions in there and even with a cursory cleanup of the ones that should not be in there I could not guarantee that some might not be even more wrong after performing a tag rename/merge.

Personally I would say we should just remove the from all of them. Even feels too vague and undefined.

  • I agree. Starting the question, I haven't thought about "abuse" or anything else. I "just" noticed there was no wiki entry and I thought it is worth fixing. I still thing it's worth fixing, but I'm not sure if it makes sense to blow this out of proportion. One question: how do you come to the conclusion that email-attachments are not well defined? They are files attached to email messages, there should/is even be a technical standard (RFC) defining them, isn't there? – Albin Jul 31 at 18:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .