I just asked a question on Dominion card/board game, and I introduced a tag dominion-attack-reaction to describe this particular aspect of the game mechanics. Is this kosher? I see tags mostly being used to describe the specific games that the question is being asked about; I used dominion tag in accordance with this tradition. I tagged a couple more questions that might be relevant, although I don't really have the tag priviliges.
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
Adding additional tags is only worth it if:
- People will be searching for that particular type of question
- You can become an "expert" in that particular tag, above and beyond being an expert in the general tag (i.e., there's no point in a general [strategy] tag, because you can't become an expert in every possible game; there's also no point in an [uno-last-card] tag, because anyone who's an expert at Uno is always also an expert at how the last card is handled)
- There are enough questions to justify the existence of the tag.
- People are going to use the tag going forward. Tags are supposed to arise naturally through use, rather than being imposed by a cabal of users on Meta.
As for formatting, doing it as (gameName)-(gameAspect) is definitely the right shape for an aspect of a particular game.
I don't think the dominion-attack-reaction tag should be added. There are a bit under 200 Dominion questions at the moment, which is respectable, but not so large that it can't just be searched with "[dominion] reaction". While you can specialize a bit in learning about reaction cards in Dominion, it's not so large of an area of expertise as to require its own subtag. Also, I can see that there are only about 7 questions that might use dominion-attack-reaction at the moment; the subtag just isn't large enough to justify its own existence.
