Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

This question's revision log suggests that only a tag (in this case, a game's German name) was removed, while in reality it was replaced by another one (here, the English name) which has vanished due to this question being the only one using it.

For the sake of consistency, either the other tag (also unused) should also vanish from the history, or, better, the no longer existing new tag should show up in the history as well, maybe together with a Community owned edit removing the tag -faking history was never a good idea to start with...

share|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

I see the issue; the current tag-burnination works by:

  • for posts currently tagged
    • remove from their history
    • remove from the actual post
  • remove the tag

what it doesn't currently consider is posts previously tagged .

Given the way the excising of the tag works, your "or better" approach isn't really a viable option. I've investigated the other aspect of consistency here, and at present that would be prohibitively expensive on some sites. To do this efficiently, we would need to add an unwieldy amount of additional storage, that would only support this fairly rare scenario.

Perhaps what is feasible is that we .... lie. Essentially, when displaying the history, we could suppress all trace of tags which we know do not exist any more - i.e. because is now dead we simply don't show it on that view. This seems to achieve something like the desired perception of consistency ;p And indeed, it is no less confusing than the fact that we don't the .

Thoughts? Of course, if we do that, several revisions could look like no-ops; for example, Mana would have changed it from


I wonder... is it really worth changing it?

share|improve this answer
well I guess if not too much work is involved it would be nice since currently history looks like a perfectly reasonable tag was removed. but yes, due to the rarity of this issue, your time is probably best spent otherwise... – Tobias Kienzler Oct 31 '11 at 16:31

You must log in to answer this question.

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