2
$\begingroup$

Worldbuilding has been doing rounds around Yellowstone:

The geographical, and geopolitical consecuences of the eruption has been asked.

How to defuse and how to trigger it has been asked too.

I don't know if Yellowstone is too narrow. I'm aware of the tag.

Anyway, I submit this to the consideration of the community.


Edit:

As I said to bilbo_pingouin the intention is not to separate Yellowstone. Instead the intention is to ease discovering these questions. The reason being that the consecuences questions have a lot of overlap and - even considering them different enough - people would benefit from reading the other questions and their answers.

I also agree on that a tag for supervolcanoes is more appropiate than a Yellostone one.

$\endgroup$
10
$\begingroup$

I think would be way too specific. covers it pretty well.

But if it's really needed to get something to represent the sheer size of the problem, then, we might consider . In history, there have been others than the Yellowstone. And in alternate worlds, there might be other ones. All those could gather under the tag, but certainly not under .

At the end, a tag is used to classify the questions. And help specialist find the right ones. I pretty much doubt people interested in would not be interested in , or the other way around. So why separate them really?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I'm aware that there are others super-volcanoes. I guess you are right in that tag would be more appropriate. About the motivation, it is not to separate them, but to ease discovering them - I'll add that to the question. You made me think that perhaps hierarchical tags could serve well stackexchange. $\endgroup$ – Theraot Sep 20 '16 at 11:00
  • $\begingroup$ Are super-volcanoes different enough from the broader category f volcanoes to warrant their own tag? Are tge interests/specializations that different? The flip side of creating the tag is having them not show up on the broader tag, unless we double-tag. I, too, wish we had tsg hierarchies, but we don't. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Sep 20 '16 at 16:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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