I just asked a question on Dominion card/board game, and I introduced a tag dominion-attack-reaction to describe this particular aspect of the game mechanics. Is this kosher? I see tags mostly being used to describe the specific games that the question is being asked about; I used dominion tag in accordance with this tradition. I tagged a couple more questions that might be relevant, although I don't really have the tag priviliges.

| |

Adding additional tags is only worth it if:

  1. People will be searching for that particular type of question
  2. You can become an "expert" in that particular tag, above and beyond being an expert in the general tag (i.e., there's no point in a general [strategy] tag, because you can't become an expert in every possible game; there's also no point in an [uno-last-card] tag, because anyone who's an expert at Uno is always also an expert at how the last card is handled)
  3. There are enough questions to justify the existence of the tag.
  4. People are going to use the tag going forward. Tags are supposed to arise naturally through use, rather than being imposed by a cabal of users on Meta.

As for formatting, doing it as (gameName)-(gameAspect) is definitely the right shape for an aspect of a particular game.

I don't think the dominion-attack-reaction tag should be added. There are a bit under 200 Dominion questions at the moment, which is respectable, but not so large that it can't just be searched with "[dominion] reaction". While you can specialize a bit in learning about reaction cards in Dominion, it's not so large of an area of expertise as to require its own subtag. Also, I can see that there are only about 7 questions that might use dominion-attack-reaction at the moment; the subtag just isn't large enough to justify its own existence.

| |
  • Fair enough, I've just been trying it out. – StasK Jun 22 '14 at 3:31

You must log in to answer this question.

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