10
\$\begingroup\$

There are currently:

Some questions are tagged with a combination of those tags.

I'm not sure what benefit these tags have.

The [software-design] wiki mentions design concepts, design considerations, and modeling language as topics, but I find those to be nebulous terms. As for the characteristics to be avoided (rigidity, fragility, and immobility), we would consider them routinely in every review anyway, right?

The [design] wiki just seems to have a lot of words that don't say anything.

The [architecture] wiki also doesn't say much, but at least it's brief.

In the worst case, the tags' existence encourages questions that are not strictly code review and questions that are clearly off-topic.

Would anyone else be in favour of eliminating these tags? Or perhaps someone could enlighten me instead. If we don't eliminate them, then surely at least and should be synonymized?

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ This is also making me think of the [architecture] tag, which can also attract off-topic questions. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jamal
    Feb 5, 2014 at 7:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Jamal Let's just discuss all three tags at once, then! \$\endgroup\$
    – 200_success
    Feb 5, 2014 at 7:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ A (possible) 3-entree meal for Trogdor! :-) \$\endgroup\$
    – Jamal
    Feb 5, 2014 at 7:40
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I believe Design & Architecture questions belong to Programmers SE. \$\endgroup\$
    – Morwenn
    Feb 9, 2014 at 10:50

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
10
\$\begingroup\$

I believe is especially worthy of burnination as it's specifically off-topic:

  • Higher-level architecture and design of software systems

The wiki even supports this:

Architecture encompasses the process, artifacts and high-level structure of a solution.

The tag also already has several closed questions. Here's one that stands out to me, which also happens to be tagged with :

https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/36967/design-advice-for-class-creation-based-on-user-selection

\$\endgroup\$
8
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Academia.SE has an undergraduate tag though undergraduate-level questions are off-topic: it's for asking questions about teaching undergraduates. Similarly not all 'architecture' questions are off-topic here: it's questions which only ask about architecture and which don't include code for review that are off-topic. \$\endgroup\$
    – ChrisW
    Feb 5, 2014 at 15:55
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @ChrisW Could you provide examples of good architecture questions, either existing or hypothetical? (Perhaps you should respond as an answer rather than as a comment.) \$\endgroup\$
    – 200_success
    Feb 5, 2014 at 20:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ @200_success Possibly a question about an 'architectural' design pattern: "Here's some code which implements Model-View-Controller: [inserts code here] Am I doing it right? What about [this problematic detail]?" Maybe the tag isn't worthwhile and there are no associated good questions. My (perhaps frivolous or nit-picky) point was only that, the fact that a word is included in the off-topic list in the FAQ doesn't always/necessarily imply that it's an unusable tag. \$\endgroup\$
    – ChrisW
    Feb 5, 2014 at 21:16
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @ChrisW We do have a design-patterns tag. As I see it, design-patterns are on-topic for Code Review, but architecture questions belong on Programmers SE. \$\endgroup\$
    – 200_success
    Feb 5, 2014 at 21:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ @200_success Fair enough. Questions like Refactoring my simple model-view-presenter architecture could be [design-patterns] instead. It's true that many of the architecture questions are mis-tagged. \$\endgroup\$
    – ChrisW
    Feb 6, 2014 at 0:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ What should one infer from the fact that the [software-design] tag has "33 followers": does that mean the tag is useful to many people? \$\endgroup\$
    – ChrisW
    Feb 6, 2014 at 0:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ChrisW: Keep in mind that 200_success is also contemplating synonymization. I'm not sure how following works in relation to that, but it shouldn't make a difference. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jamal
    Feb 7, 2014 at 23:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree and would put forth that "architecture" in its definitive form obviates code. Architectural questions are by definition high-level, and anyone tagging a code-specific question with [architecture] is probably mistaken in their definition of the tag or on the wrong site. \$\endgroup\$
    – David Harkness
    Feb 14, 2014 at 5:37
1
\$\begingroup\$

Considering that these three tag can represent off-topic questions, I'll hold off on contacting SE until any remaining off-topic questions from these tags are found and closed.

EDIT: Cleanup has been completed and the request has been sent to SE. The question will receive momentarily.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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