8
$\begingroup$

So I recently rejected a tag-wiki edit, but others approved it. I personally thought (from reading the this page, and gentle comments from Robert Cartino on my own edits), that a tag wiki excerpt should contain what kind of questions should be asked in that tag, and that the full tag wiki should define what it the item means (especially to this particular site).

However, this was the proposed text for the full tag wiki.

Questions regarding organism, morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, origin, and distribution. This includes what if scenarios for possible life forms.

Yet it was approved by people whom I would trust on this site. Have I missed something about tag wikis?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ That was my first attempt at editing a tag. I didn't think it was real great, but I thought it was better than nothing. They can be edited and if someone thinks they can do better I'll be the first person to approve it. $\endgroup$ – bowlturner Sep 29 '14 at 14:13
  • $\begingroup$ @bowlturner ok. Cool, I mostly wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. $\endgroup$ – DonyorM Sep 29 '14 at 14:20
7
$\begingroup$

Your understanding appears to mesh quite well with mine.

The tag wiki should explain, ideally within 2-3 sentences at most, which questions should use the tag. It should not need any external references in order to do so. It may also suggest alternative, related tags which may be of interest but which are not synonyms (consider for example the and tags).

The full tag wiki should go into more depth, perhaps define terms used, provide links and other references for those wishing to learn more, and so on. This can be several paragraphs or more.

To be honest, in this particular case, I might have rejected the edit myself; the proposed text makes a decent tag wiki (as opposed to full tag wiki), but frankly it feels too broad to me. Tags need to be reasonably specific; that tag wiki sounds like it's throwing in pretty much everything and the kitchen sink. Behavior, for one, is ethology, not biology. Origin and possibly also distribution feels like it would be better tagged as evolution. And possibly others.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with Michael - I approved the edit but only because it was better than what was there (i.e. nothing). There doesn't seem to be an "improve" option on that review queue or I'd most likely have done that. $\endgroup$ – Tim B Sep 29 '14 at 12:16
  • $\begingroup$ @TimB Ok, I was wondering what the rational behind that approvement was. $\endgroup$ – DonyorM Sep 30 '14 at 7:27
  • $\begingroup$ @DonyorM No worries. Some people think edits should be "all or nothing" but so long as an edit is a substantial improvement over what was there I usually approve it even though further improvements could be made. $\endgroup$ – Tim B Sep 30 '14 at 8:00

You must log in to answer this question.

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