Scrolling through the list of tags on a full desktop screen, I see several are truncated. Three in particular caught my eye as they are heavily used on the site. Should their descriptions be abridged to fit in the 3 lines available? Or at least more compacted to try to get more info into those 3 lines? For example, we could get reality-check down as

Asks if a given concept is realistic in a given context. Answers should say yes or no, with support. Contrast with: science-based and hard-science tags. This tag should never be the only tag on a question because this tag frames how a question should be answered, not the topic.

That puts the answering guidance within the visible section.

I supplied edits to a few tags that had no description by looking at the questions that used that tag, but I hesitated to touch any tag with long standing.

Is the general goal to have any tag's short description fit within the ~150 characters?

screen shot of tag descriptions Ascreen shot of tag descriptions B


1 Answer 1


This is a good question. To answer it though I'm going to look at another place, the place that's important for this - which is what you see when asking a question:


This is where the tag summary is intended for, to tell someone thinking of using the tag when they should and should not use it. As you can see the 140 character limit does not apply here - and it is more important that the tag summary be clear and specific than brief.

Having said that if anything is overly verbose then cutting that down is a good idea, so long as important details are not lost.


You must log in to answer this question.

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