2

UPDATE:

I have changed the wiki guidance as per option #2.


So this week's tag promo (and therefore my retagging focus) includes
Tags of the week! April 29-May 5, 2019: Research & Book

I've never been real clear on how/when to use it. I've been using it for questions about books as an entity. Mostly physical tomes but also e-books. So not short pieces that are published in magazines or on blogs. But yes for short pieces that are collected into one volume.

But that's not what the guidance says. It starts off as I imagine, then gets broad.

Questions to do with fiction or nonfiction tomes, either professionally- or self-published.

Questions to do with fiction or nonfiction tomes, print or digital, either professionally- or self-published. Can cover plotting, characterization, style, methodology, one-offs vs. series, distribution, formatting, and logistics.

It was created in Nov 2010, so very very early. My guess is it was superseded by more specific tags and just left alone.

What do we want to do with it?

  1. Leave it as it is and just let inertia sort things out.
  2. Cut the extra wiki and leave it as "Questions to do with fiction or nonfiction tomes, print or digital, either professionally- or self-published."
  3. Get rid of it.
  4. Something else.

Please render an opinion.

  • 2
    When I noticed that tag among our "up-and-coming" tags I meant to raise this, and didn't. And then it was used in this week's topic challenge and I thought "hey, what is that tag even for, really?". So thank you for raising this! – Monica Cellio Apr 30 at 2:34
  • @MonicaCellio I probably should have asked about it before making it a tag of the week but I didn't realize how it was confusing until I sat down and started to organize retagging for it (which I haven't started cause I'm not sure yet). – Cyn Apr 30 at 2:37
5

Cut the fat and leave the tag

Option 2 is the correct one. I've found that we have a few tags with overly broad wiki definitions. itself is a perfectly good tag but it should not be used for "plotting, characterization, style, methodology" the others are legitimate uses for the tag.

I suggest a tag-wiki edit to focus on the actual use for the tag and remove the ambiguity. I agree that use has likely dropped off due to more specific tags like and but that doesn't mean it is an invalid tag.

  • That sounds reasonable. There have been many times I've felt it was the right tag. I just want to hear from others about it. – Cyn Apr 30 at 1:47
  • perhaps in the wiki/synonym add the word "monograph" -- it confused me so much to realize it just meant a book. :) I was thinking it had specific features, like a chapbook is (I think) physically smaller (up to about 40pp?) , and an e-book may be DRM-free or only compatible with certain devices. – April Apr 30 at 13:52
  • Actually, per Wikipedia, my original understanding was right - a monograph GENERALLY means a specialist book, often one subject, 1 author; but in cataloging, it's to contrast with anything serialized, thus even novels are monographs. – April Apr 30 at 13:53
  • @Cyn I'm not sure just straight removing the tag info is the right way to go. We should try to make a better one as well. I meant we should just remove the conflicting parts. – linksassin Apr 30 at 23:48
  • I kept everything except the parts about "plotting, characterization, style, methodology, one-offs vs. series, distribution, formatting, and logistics." That left two lines that were pretty much identical. I kept the longer one and put it on the main guidance and deleted the dup. What would you suggest for a change? – Cyn May 1 at 0:37
  • @Cyn My apologies was there no tag wiki previously? I think we should put something there while we're looking at it. – linksassin May 1 at 0:41
  • There was. It's in the question above. – Cyn May 1 at 0:56
  • @Cyn Ah! Ok I understand now. I'll submit a tag wiki edit when I get a chance. – linksassin May 1 at 0:58

You must log in to answer this question.

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