This is related to the other question I just asked about improving the on-page guidelines for tag wiki edits. Since I know, in the back of my mind, that there will always be people who don't read the instructions even if the guidelines are relevant and helpful, I'd like to avoid having to always copy and paste the link to that one blog post when rejecting useless tag wiki edits.

Copied content doesn't always apply since sometimes people paraphrase, and neither too minor nor invalid edit really seem to fit the spirit (the content wasn't necessarily poor, just irrelevant).

Something like the following (only for tag wikis, obviously):

Too general: This edit presents a generic definition of the tag topic instead of explaining its intended use. For more information, see our guidelines for writing tag wikis.

Or maybe even something that would cover all of the guidelines, such as:

Not helpful: This edit does not follow any of our tag wiki guidelines and is unlikely to help instruct future visitors in the appropriate use of the tag.

Basically any rejection reason that clearly communicates the concept of that's a good definition, but we don't want definitions and links back to that blog post would be nice.

  • 4
    What about the majority of tags that don't have a site-specific nuance and do get by fine on a generic description? – random Dec 23 '11 at 21:38
  • @random but is the point of a tag wiki to carry a paraphrased Wikipedia summary of the topic? Surely not. – Pekka Dec 23 '11 at 21:39
  • It's really those meta tags or ambiguous tags that you would see site-specific tag wikis really needed for the most part. Plus, people don't have to always use Wikipedia to draw their excerpt definitions from, if they weren't lazy @the – random Dec 23 '11 at 21:42
  • 3
    @random: That's really not the case at all. There are many, many terms that have domain-specific meanings. On Stack Overflow, PHP means the programming language PHP; on a stats site it might mean the Pigeon-Hole Principle. "Python" is going to mean something completely different on SO than it might mean on an Animals or Pets site. It's just wrong to say that only meta/ambiguous tags require definitions. Take C#/.NET, for example; most users on Stack Overflow still don't understand that [.net] is for framework questions while [c#] is for language questions. That's what the tag wiki's for. – Aarobot Dec 23 '11 at 21:52
  • Anyway, this is hardly the time or place to be debating the guidelines themselves, which have been around for ages. If tags are meant for categorizing content on the site - as opposed to being generic keywords - then clearly the tag "wiki" should be geared toward helping users categorize content on the site - as opposed to defining generic keywords. – Aarobot Dec 23 '11 at 21:56
  • I rejected a tag wiki edit on Drupal Answers, and I had to enter a custom reason; if it were possible, I would have chosen the reject reason proposed here. – kiamlaluno Dec 24 '11 at 0:43


We now support an arbitrary list of rejection reasons that are only displayed for a particular post type id.

So, it is trivial to separate answer and question rejection reasons, etc.



You must log in to answer this question.

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