1
$\begingroup$

I proposed a new tag at https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/55877914#55877914, but the right place to discuss it is here in Meta.

I already created that tag. Should we rename, delete, etc. it?

Suggestions and comments appreciated.


Although it can't be enforced, ideally the tag would be applied by the OQ him/herself.

Some folks wanting to help newbies might want to follow it.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There really weren't any existing appropriate tags for the post that I created that tag for. $\endgroup$ – Mike Waters Oct 23 at 18:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I find it a good idea to discuss it here: +1. $\endgroup$ – Marcus Müller Oct 24 at 22:34
  • $\begingroup$ The beginner tag was removed from all questions. A tag can't be manually deleted, but it will go away soon. $\endgroup$ – Mike Waters Oct 26 at 20:16
3
$\begingroup$

That tag falls on important metrics, imho:

  1. utility: great, now we'll have questions with that tag. How will that help? It doesn't describe a specific field of knowledge or skill necessary to answer.
  2. specificity: what specifically would that tag describe? It's current description reads
    "Questions about getting started in amateur radio etc."
    The fact that it ends in "etc" probably means its not really especially specific. And what specifically is "getting started"? Does any question related to attaining a license qualify? Or only these specific to the lower classes? Am I a beginner, without license?
  3. universality: I hinted at that above, but since this is not an expert discussion forum, you're supposed to ask questions about topics in which you're not an authority – hence, basically every question (aside from these we self-answer) would qualify for this tag!

So, my proposal would be to go through the list of currently tagged questions, re-tag to remove and then let the tag disappear.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, Marcus. What about a different name? $\endgroup$ – Mike Waters Oct 25 at 1:49
  • $\begingroup$ The current description was the first thing that came to mind. $\endgroup$ – Mike Waters Oct 25 at 1:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ hm, I think you might have a good idea, but we need to put down a couple cornerstones for what we want to achieve with this first. My, very utilarian, approach here would be: What do you want to achieve, foster with that tag? Soon as we know that, I'm sure we can agree on a name – basically, we could even make up a word, as long as we agree on its meaning :D $\endgroup$ – Marcus Müller Oct 26 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know. Now I am out of ideas. Seemed like a good idea at the time. ;-) $\endgroup$ – Mike Waters Oct 26 at 20:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Keep in mind that the reason why I created that tag was that there was no appropriate tag for that question. It was tagged jargon by the OP, and I added two tags which barely apply. $\endgroup$ – Mike Waters Oct 26 at 20:31
3
$\begingroup$

I find several of the arguments in answers to the meta.SE question that Kevin linked to in chat, Should we be adding tags like [beginner] to questions?, to be interesting. Of the four answers to that question, none argued in favor of having a beginner tag.

  • People may find "beginner" offensive
  • One person's "beginner" question is someone else's advanced question
  • People might ignore interesting "beginner" questions

I agree with the argument that some people might find "beginner" to be offensive. I propose that we change the beginner tag to fundamentals.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Oops, I thought that I accidentally deleted this, but it was you. I love fundamentals, but you can delete it again if you really want to. $\endgroup$ – Mike Waters Oct 26 at 20:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I deleted it because I liked Marcus' argument for no such tag better, but on the other hand I'm glad that you undeleted it, because it's another option for the community. $\endgroup$ – rclocher3 Oct 26 at 21:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I do like that, it gives the whole thing a direction. Maybe a bit broad. Fundamentals - of what? Wave propagation? Operating radios? Regulations? But I think this might be the direction of the term we could be going $\endgroup$ – Marcus Müller Oct 26 at 22:41
  • $\begingroup$ @MarcusMüller Fundamentals of anything in the scope of hamSE, I suppose. $\endgroup$ – Mike Waters Oct 26 at 23:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ but that's pretty subjective, right? Like, I guess for me some things are super fundamental, because my path here was a rather theoretically-based one, whereas I might have real trouble doing something practical that's very fundamental for someone else? $\endgroup$ – Marcus Müller Oct 26 at 23:46
  • $\begingroup$ If I say "fundamentals of electric circuits", that at least tries to agree on the scope a bit more! $\endgroup$ – Marcus Müller Oct 26 at 23:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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