# What's the Code Review guideline for tags and where can I find it?

Recently I started the review question IGB Stack Flair – A dynamic flair for Stack Exchange sites. I created the tags and for it because they didn't exist and that's simply what it is about (see IGB Stack Flair – A dynamic flair for Stack Exchange sites on Stack Apps).

The creation of has been accepted shortly after but it's gone in the meantime. It most probably has been deleted. First questions:

1. Where is the protocol about the deletion?
2. Who deleted it?
3. Why did he/she do so?
4. What/where is the guideline page that contains the reason(s) that justify this deletion?
5. How/where can I veto this decision? Only here on meta? Every time such happens?

's creation has been rejected by user Mast and both of the tags have been deleted from my review question by him, with the comment "Not everything deserves it's own tag. If you disagree, feel free to take it up on meta.". I had a short discussion with him in that he continued to point me to meta. Second questions:

1. Which guidelines did user Mast follow when he rejected my tag creation proposal?
2. What/where is the guideline page that contains the reason(s) to justify this rejection (and the following deletion of the tags from my review question)?
3. How/where can I veto this decision? Only here on meta? Every time such happens?

Ad 6.: "Not everything deserves it's own tag." is an opinion that's perfectly fine. However, there may be other opinions (mine, for instance) and this reasoning is a killer phrase (meant to prevent discussions in advance?). It wasn't about "everything" in this case, it was about one tag in this particular case (and two for the whole review question). Two of the meaningful kind, to stress my opinion.

I've been a Wikipedia author (of its German edition mainly) for more than 10 years, with 16,800 edits now. I know the categorization system and its importance there. Tags at SE are basically the same. Without proper categorization/tagging you're lost on big sites like these. You're not going to find anything. And if, you're not going to find it easily.

Finally, I'd like to say that having to write such a paper-like essay here, just to justify the meaningful creation of two simple tags doesn't make my day a bit happier. It steals my–perhaps also your–precious time. I could have answered a few questions on one of the various SE sites I'm involved in the meantime. It keeps me from that why I'm here: answering questions as good and helpful as possible, asking good questions that others didn't think of yet. If I may be honest: That's utterly ridiculous.

P.S.: Over the recent years I reduced my activities at WP drastically since edits are often challenged, or even reverted almost immediately without comprehensible justification. Discussion tend to get out of hand and to become personal at a point (I can't count the times Mike Godwin has been honoured this way). It seems as if such is inherent on sites that rely on collective intelligence.

P.P.S: Another argument: The tags' subjects are not my personal invention/theory. They are integrated parts of the SE network:

The latter being used by 6 million users, on 12 million questions and 20 million answers (figures of September 2016).

• I'm at work at the moment, but if no other good answer exists in four or so hours, I will likely write up one. – Simon Forsberg Apr 21 '17 at 12:04
• @SimonForsberg Thank you for your "moderative benediction" which, I guess, keeps this question from being put on hold or something like that ('cause that's another issue at SE, sometimes, though not here and now). "Simon Forsberg"? There's something in one of the dark corners of my mind. Am I supposed to know you? Or is it because it is a common name in Sweden? – Gerold Broser Apr 21 '17 at 12:38
• FWIW Participating in meta-discussions is just as crucially important and healthy for the site as participating in the Q&A section - far from wasting anyone's time. Welcome to Meta.CR! – Mathieu Guindon Apr 21 '17 at 19:08
• @Mat'sMug Thank you for your friendly welcome (that wasn't always the case on other SE sites recently, but that's also another issue, not for here and now). I understand that (all) meta sites are important for the community for a bunch of reasons. Perhaps I'm not neutral enough in this particular case–though I managed it to see the whole issue from a more relaxed POV to a certain extent. However, given that the question is around two tags out of–How many? Hundreds? Thousands even?–I personally felt it like a waste of time. From the community's POV I understand and support your statement. – Gerold Broser Apr 21 '17 at 21:55

The creation of has been accepted shortly after

On Stack Exchange anyone with sufficient reputation can create a tag. There is nothing for anyone to approve or accept with that. Both and were created by you on your question, and then both tags were removed from your question through an edit by another user.

I will not answer your questions about the tag deletion because you already know who deleted it and they already gave you their reason for doing so. Additionally, I find the question about tag creation more interesting, because what was done here in the first place was that two new tags was created.

How/where can I veto this decision? Only here on meta? Every time such happens?

I wouldn't call it "veto". The only veto available here would be if a moderator locked the question, or blacklisted a tag. But generally, yes, meta is a good place for discussions about tags. Every time it happens? Hopefully it will not happen that often. If disagreement about new tag creation would happen that often, there would be a bigger problem.

Unlike Wikipedia, where there's no (to my knowledge) limit on how many categories can be applied to a page, and each category can have multiple sub-categories: On Stack Exchange you are limited to 5 tags per question, and there is no tag hierarchy system (despite several suggestions to introduce one). This means that tagging questions on Stack Exchange is not the same as categorizing Wikipedia pages. There are similarities of course, but there are also major differences.

Without proper categorization/tagging you're lost on big sites like these. You're not going to find anything. And if, you're not going to find it easily.

Are you comparing the size of Code Review Stack Exchange with that of Wikipedia? Flattering, but on Code Review we have as of this writing 43 657 questions while Wikipedia has over five million pages (and that's only on the English version of Wikipedia). Searching for stackapps or flair is quite easy here and it's also possible to filter it to only questions or only answers.

Let's take a look at your proposed tags and how many other questions could use them:

Four questions in total found when searching for "flair". Out of these, only one other than yours could use the tag, and it was asked six years ago.

Five questions, including yours, would be appropriate for the tag "stackapps". However, all of them are also appropriate for "stackexchange", which is a slightly broader tag. As already mentioned, Stack Exchange doesn't have a tag hierarchy system. Introducing the tag could lead to tag fragmentation (If we add "stackapps", should we also add a tag for the SEDE - Stack Exchange Data Explorer?)

When reading your question I thought of a previous meta question about when to create a new tag for a game. @rolfl had some good things in his answer there, specifically:

• For askers, they connect experts with questions they will be able to answer - they allow you to direct your question to the people most able to answer it.
• Tags can be used to report on broad statistics, tracking activity over time, etc.
• Tags can be used for awarding badges.
• (...) There has to be an expectation of a reasonable, and continuing number of questions that will be candidates for the tag. Will there continue to be a need for the tag?

• Are there 'flair' experts that would like to follow the tag?

Probably not that many.

• Is there an expectation of a reasonable number of questions that will be candidate for the 'flair' tag?

Given what I mentioned before, two questions in six years, no.

• Are there 'stackapps' experts that would like to follow the tag?

Given the broad variety of Stackapps, I'd argue that it's hard to be an expert in that area. However, there are definitely experts of Stack Exchange, to which there is already a tag.

• you are better read than I, @Simon. your last two bullets clearly illustrate (Much better) what I was trying to say in my answer. I fully agree with you. – Malachi Apr 24 '17 at 15:19

The way I'm reading your questions they fall into the following three categories:

• Protocols
The privilege for creating tags explains when to create tags.

• Mast
A lot of your questions have to do with Mast's rational, but only they can give you that insight. You could try asking them in chat, as that is directly in their profile.

• Meta
All things related to moderating Code Review's main site are discussed on Code Review's Meta site, here. And so if you have a problem with how something's handled, ask a question here.

In this case you should actually argue why the tags should be added, not for us to do that for you.

I'm also going to respond to a couple of your other sections, that I think are relevant to this discussion:

I think you think we're a bit more aggressive then we are. Mast doesn't think the tags are worthwhile, and from what you've described, told you to come to Meta to discuss this. And so now you should make a strong case for your tag. If you can fit that case in a 600 character limited comment, then it's not that strong a case. (This also has the added benefit of making the discussion searchable.)

• Your "Finally, [...] paper-like essay" section.
You've not justified the creation of the tags, I can only find you questioning Mast's judgement. Nowhere do I see any reasoning to re-add these tags.

• Thank you for your answer. IIRC, I wrote "the protocol about the deletion". That means I didn't mean the before (creation), but the after (deletion). "A lot of [...] to do with Mast"? I'm terribly sorry but that's not true. It's 2 out of 8. "Meta" – That's exactly what I did, didn't I? ;) What do you exactly mean by "fit [...] in a 600 character limited comment"? I asked a question here and I posted more than one comment in the conversation with Mast. I added my P.P.S. at -21 12:55:40Z. You wrote this answer at -21 14:19:54Z. I assume you've seen it, did you? There are 38 million reasons. – Gerold Broser Apr 22 '17 at 7:36
• @GeroldBroser Your protocol questions are (1, 4, 6, 7). You can also explicitly and implicitly question someone, and I'm getting that vibe from a lot more than just two of your questions. 600 characters are the character limit of these very comments we're both writing in. Finally I don't read your P.P.S. as justification, should we add a tag for cats and dogs, because there's a lot of them? – Peilonrayz Apr 22 '17 at 14:28
• I'm sorry, again, but no, it's rather 1., 2. & 3. I'm sorry, but I'm not responsible for anybody's vibes but my own. Your vibes are solely your deal. I can't comprehend what you really mean by that. And, once again, I'm really terribly sorry but your "cats and dogs" is a ridiculous nil argument. CR isn't about cats and dogs, AFAIK, IIRC, after all. I've heard that such "arguments" usually appear in a discussion if one hasn't any further good arguments. I'd like to propose to come to a more serious level in this discussion. Deal? – Gerold Broser Apr 22 '17 at 15:08
• @GeroldBroser There's actually 30 questions with 'dogs' so I wouldn't say that "CR isn't about cats and dogs". – Simon Forsberg Apr 22 '17 at 17:18

One thing to keep in mind is that "Flair" has nothing to do with a programming concept, so that isn't really a good tag here or on Stack Overflow.

Stack Apps, don't specify on a single coding language or type of application, which is why that was rejected as a tag. Stack Apps can be any type of application that interacts with Stack Exchange or allows the viewing of Stack Exchange Data via API, or even a userscript that can be run on Stack Exchange sites. it really isn't specific enough to warrant a tag.
On my StackApp posts I use the tag and link directly to my StackApp Post.

I also used the tag because that is what my app is, a User Script that can be run on Chrome and Firefox (eventually Edge, Fingers Crossed)

I know this isn't much to go on, but gives you a brief answer as to why those tags were rejected.

• Technically StackApp is more specific than "StackExchange". And not everything has to be about a programming concept in order to be a tag. We have tag for 'minesweeper', 'entity-component-system', 'rubberduck' and all sorts of non-programming-concepts. – Simon Forsberg Apr 21 '17 at 13:17
• [1st comment] Firs of all, thank you for your answer. Re "or on Stack Overflow" – I didn't write about SO (though this is my main site at SE). I wrote about CR and just referred to an app at SA. I don't see a comprehensible "which is why" in your second sentence, even less with your third sentence. It's true what you say about the variety of SW and my opinion is that if there's is a variety of SW there can, or maybe even should be a variety of tags for this SW. [to be continued] – Gerold Broser Apr 21 '17 at 21:20
• [2nd comment] Simon here is absolutely right (from my POV), StackApp is very specific in this category. You name it: "interacts with Stack Exchange or allows the viewing of Stack Exchange Data via API". My StackApp is in JavaScript but it is no UserScript that's intended to run in FF's GM, Chrome's TM, or the like. It runs as integrated part of a web page. Integrated in the sense of triggered by a function call in an onload attribute or in a WP <skin>.js. Finally, it's not my downvote. – Gerold Broser Apr 21 '17 at 21:30