1

A continuation of question: Should we get rid of "wood" in our tags?

I have seen the tag pop up a couple of times recently. It used to be on the following questions

How would I go about achieving a curve in wood?

What is a burl?

How do I cut thick wood with a jigsaw?

I have tried to update the tags to something a little more pertinent and I am sure it could be better. I leave the questions here in case someone thinks I made the wrong decision. Specifically the burl question is left to rot by itself without other tags but I am not sure what to use.

Getting to the point. Should we bad to stop people from using it. Has anyone, upon further reflection, see a reason to keep the tag? Is banning this early a bad idea?

| |
  • I think this is actually a separate question, not an extension. The other one was about removing the "wood-" prefix from various terms. This one is about banning wood entirely. – rob Jun 18 '15 at 4:14
2

No, should not be banned.

I think the is useful as long as its scope is limited to questions about the "raw" material itself (quotes around "raw" because I think it's fair to classify composite materials such as plywood and MDF as "wood" in this context).

Just as unites and , can unite and , as well as questions about wood (the material) which do not neatly fit under either of those categories. With removed, the burl question is now in no way linked to other questions about wood via tags.

Looking at your examples more closely...

This one is strictly about wood, the material itself:

What is a burl?

These are not strictly about the material itself, but rather, about techniques for processing or manipulating the material:

How would I go about achieving a curve in wood?

How do I cut thick wood with a jigsaw?

| |
  • Burl was the question that gave me an internal debate. Would perhaps green-wood be a better fit? I feel the need to find some alternative that does not involve wood. You might be able to make the distinction but the community as a whole does not appear to be.... – Matt Jun 18 '15 at 11:45
  • At first I thought it wasn't necessary but @rob makes some good points. I agree with him. – drs Jun 18 '15 at 14:00
  • @Matt could you clarify the "need to find some alternative that does not involve wood"--I'm not sure I understand. If I want to search for all types of wood when designing a project, it would be nice to be able to search on wood. You can use a burl either green or dry just as with other wood, so I don't think green-wood covers it. If we edit the tag wiki to limit the scope of wood I think it will be clearer, and there are enough of us to police its use if we can adequately restrict the tag's scope. Is the scope I've defined here clear to you, or is it still unclear? – rob Jun 18 '15 at 16:13
  • Sorry about that. In general wood seemed way too generic. Having the burl question with only the burl tag is useless as it is less likely to be found so I felt bad removing the tag. If you are OK with policing the wood tag then thats fine. I just thought it served no purpose so we should prevent its usage and the community could spend its time doing other things. So far it hasnt been bad. Just hoping to stop a trend before it starts. I just don't see a reason someone would search the wood tag since it is involved with everything. – Matt Jun 18 '15 at 16:25
  • I was hoping for a solution that would help the burl question while avoiding the use of the wood tag – Matt Jun 18 '15 at 16:33
  • @Matt I'm glad you brought up wood for discussion because it will allow us to define the tag in a meaningful way, so it won't be applicable to practically every question. Is the distinction I'm trying to make between wood (the material itself) and wood-related (techniques, processing, etc.) clear to you? If not, then we should try to further clarify it. – rob Jun 18 '15 at 16:52
  • We should also review some of the other tags periodically to see how they are currently being used and discuss how they should be used. – rob Jun 18 '15 at 16:52
  • Another possibility is to come up with a different tag for the application I'm trying to define, but I'm not sure if a different tag would seem any less ambiguous to the uninitiated or whether it would be as easy to discover. – rob Jun 18 '15 at 17:03
  • We can keep it for now. I am clear on what you are saying. We'll keep an eye on it for now. Check on it later to see what is up. – Matt Jun 19 '15 at 0:57
1

might not be a bad idea. We are wood workers after all and probably about %95 of our questions could have the 'wood' tag, making it rather pointless.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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