I am bit puzzled about the usage of the tag, because we also have and . The definitions of the two latter seem to describe subsets of what the tag applies to.

So my question is: when we have a question that matches the definition of or , should we also tag it with ?

  • I like how this question has the tags and tagging tags, which seem to have exactly the same issue. – hiergiltdiestfu Sep 22 '15 at 7:26
  • @hiergiltdiestfu Congrats! I wondered from the start whether someone would notice that ;-) – Matthias Sep 22 '15 at 7:29
  • And … they are merged. – Wrzlprmft Sep 25 '15 at 12:01

From the tag wiki of :

This tag should be used for questions asking about nuances of meaning and definitions of a specific word. […]

If you are asking about the definitions or nuances of words, phrases or even sentences, please use the broader instead.

I do not understand where the difference is and moreover where it should matter. Tags do not exist for their own sake but to ease searching or allow interested people to subscribe to them. I thus opt for synonymising to .

I could imagine that somebody is particularly interested in answering questions, and thus I would not synonymise to . I would apply both tags for questions that are asking from a specific context but also about the general meaning of a word.

  • Thank you! Side effect of your answer: I learned about the tag wiki. Apparently it is so hidden that I didn't ever notice it before, but at least not hidden enough that I could not find it myself after your hint. – Matthias Sep 20 '15 at 22:20
  • Ich kann mich nur noch schwach erinnern. Wir haben damals eine ganze Reihe an Tags dokumentiert, gelöscht, synonym gemacht etc. Auf jeden Fall sind "Meaning" und "Word-meaning" für mich nicht wirkich synonym. Man fragt nicht immer nach der Bedeutung eines Wortes, sondern vielleicht auch einer Phrase, einer Redewendung oder weiß der Geier. Da man aber nicht für alles und jedes ein einzelnen Tag machen will, war glaub ich damals die Idee, dass "meaning" als globaler Tag genutzt wird, wenn es nicht um ein Wort geht. Umgesetzt wurde es in der Weise selten. Oft werden beide parallel verwendet. – Em1 Sep 25 '15 at 7:03
  • Hmm, ich verstehe jetzt, wo der Unterschied liegen soll, aber nicht so wirklich, welchen Vorteil es hat, diesen auch in Tags zu haben. Wann würde jemand ausschließlich eines der beiden Tags abonnieren oder ausschließlich nach einem der beiden Tags suchen wollen? Und selbst wenn, ist dieser Fall hinreichend häufig um den Aufwand zu rechtfertigen, die beiden Tags auseinanderzuhalten? – Wrzlprmft Sep 25 '15 at 7:07
  • The current situation looks a bit "halfway-done". word-meaning still exists and is a synonym to meaning. Its description, however, still tells you when to use one and the other, which looks silly, because for new taggings you always end up with meaning. Also, I still see a separate counter for the word-meaning tag badge, which I will never be able to get, since there won't be new questions for this tag. Wouldn't it be better to merge word-meaning and meaning? – Matthias Jan 19 '16 at 12:22
  • @Matthias: I only synonymised the tags first, in case we decided to undo this (which is nearly impossible for merges). By now, they can safely be merged, what I did. As for the tag info, I simply forgot it. – Wrzlprmft Jan 19 '16 at 15:10
  • @Wrzlprmft Thank you! – Matthias Jan 19 '16 at 23:04

You must log in to answer this question.

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