9

Do we really have have a need for ? It seems like an extremely broad tag that could apply to most questions on the site involving cards.

Currently it appears to only be applied to one question and I think it should not be used at all.

This has now been applied to a question with no other tag to support it so I think there is strong evidence that this tag will be misused.

Mini Rogue - What player get After defeat Boss Monster at area 11,12 and 13?

3
  • 1
    I've added the mini-rogue tag to that question. I don't think that was a problem. The mini-rogue tag didn't exist beforehand, and that's actually better than what they would've done before -- just pick any random tag at all because it's a new uncovered game.
    – doppelgreener
    Mar 13, 2018 at 16:49
  • @DarkCygnus I was not talking about the edit since that introduced the correct tag but the initial posting which just included specific-card. Also the edit wasn't made by a mod but a normal user who is helping keep the site maintained.
    – Joe W
    Mar 13, 2018 at 17:20
  • 1
    I have removed the tag.
    – murgatroid99 Mod
    Mar 19, 2018 at 20:22

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
10

No, should be removed.

The tag "specific card" divides all questions on the site into two categories: questions about a specific card, and questions not about a specific card. Neither of those categories is useful.

Furthermore, any guidance on when to use this tag will be extremely dicey. The majority of questions about individual cards get resolved using the comprehensive game rules; i.e. the real question is about the rules, not the card. There is a very fine line between a question about a specific card and a question about the rules that happens to apply to a specific card - too fine to justify a tag that delineates it.

3
  • 2
    "The tag "specific card" divides all questions on the site into two categories: questions about a specific card, and questions not about a specific card." - This binary interpretation can be made of any tag. The MTG tag divides Qs into Magic and non-magic posts, so stating that it just splits questions into 2 categories is an understatement. Specific cards mean about 1,2 cards, there are questions about ruling (and not cards), deck builds (many cards), card archetypes (maaany cards)... and those are not binary partitions from specific-card tag...
    – DarkCygnus
    Mar 13, 2018 at 5:35
  • 1
    Agreed, every tag splits questions into two categories. My point is that some of those categories are useful and some are not. A grouping of questions about deck builds or card archetypes might be useful. A grouping of questions based on whether or not a specific card is involved is not.
    – BJ Myers
    Mar 13, 2018 at 5:51
  • I completely disagree with you and have written an answer explaining why.
    – SK19
    Mar 17, 2018 at 15:40
10

No, the tag should not exist. The purpose of a tag is to label a category or topic that someone would either search for or watch. This tag does not do any of that, so it should be removed.

UPDATE: I have removed the tag.

1
  • 1
    Well, people could search for specific card questions... as well as subscribe to such tag, as some users may be interested in specific cards, instead of general ruling or similar
    – DarkCygnus
    Mar 13, 2018 at 5:22
3

To add another reason to the other 2 answers... the primary way I use tags (and I would guess most people do as well) is to know if a particular question is one that I might be able to answer. Oh, this question is about MTG, Dominion, Catan? I know those games well, I should read this and see if I know the answer.

Subcategories of MTG succeed in helping with this as well... Some people might know MTG rules pretty well, but don't know much about Commander. However, it seems very unlikely that anyone out there would be able to answer a question that's about a specific card, but not a general one. Or that would be able to answer a general question, but not one about a specific card.

-2

I disagree with the others!

Furthermore, any guidance on when to use this tag will be extremely dicey. The majority of questions about individual cards get resolved using the comprehensive game rules; i.e. the real question is about the rules, not the card.

"specific card" is not a tag I search for to see if I can answer questions. But it is useful to get a feeling what the question is about, and if I am likely to go the extra mile to make an effort. True, often questions regarding specific cards can be answered with a reference to the rules, but this is because the card is part of the game!

The tag "specific card" divides all questions on the site into two categories: questions about a specific card, and questions not about a specific card. Neither of those categories is useful.

This is your personal opinion and not a fact. Counterexample: "reality-check", "science-based" and "hard-science" on Worldbuilding SE. Divides the questions on the side into 3 categories and it works good for them.

Nice quote from relevant question on meta:

Tags that no one cares about are not harmful. Removing a tag that someone cares about is harmful.

See also.

4
  • 1
    The specific-card tag fails the first, second, and fifth (and arguably the third) bullet point on the second meta link you posted, and according to the first link is probably a meta tag. The Worldbuilding case is a great example where broad categories divide a site into useful groups, unlike "specific-card." The fact that those tags work well has no bearing on this tag being bad.
    – BJ Myers
    Mar 17, 2018 at 18:38
  • 2
    I understand that you disagree with other answers on this question, but until the matter is resolved please do not add the tag to more questions.
    – murgatroid99 Mod
    Mar 17, 2018 at 18:44
  • @murgatroid99 No problem
    – SK19
    Mar 17, 2018 at 18:52
  • 1
    I would say it also fails the 4th bullet point since searching by specific-card alone will return results for multiple games unless you refine the search to also include which game(s) you are looking for,
    – Joe W
    Mar 18, 2018 at 15:12

You must log in to answer this question.

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