I would write an extended rationale for why and everywhere it is used is ridiculous, if I did not think it was already self-evident.

Can it be speedy-delete-blacklisted, or does anyone have a "no, that's a useful tag" argument?

  • There are times when "implementation" could be a legitimate descriptive tag. But it would only be in combination with some standard (XML-implementation, OpenGL-implemenentation, as opposed to questions about XML/OpenGL as specifications). Of course, since questions about some XML implementation have nothing to do with questions about an OpenGL implementation, it still wouldn't work. I don't think full-on burnination is necessary, but it does need to be deconstructed. – Nicol Bolas Dec 5 '12 at 1:06
  • 1
    @NicolBolas I guess to me the value of a tag has a lot to do with if it enables some kind of discovery. Some disagree with why I like playing-cards, but I like it because if someone asks a question about solitaire and drawing cards in Java then you get a taxonomy that opens up related issues. A query on [playing-cards] [java] might get you somewhere. My critique of implementation is just not being able to paint a scenario in my mind where it does any good... – HostileFork says dont trust SE Dec 5 '12 at 1:15
  • 1
    Every one of these I've looked at could benefit from editing off that tag, and most should be closed. – Rosinante Dec 5 '12 at 1:16
  • 1
    Apparently it's not self-evident to 134 people, so please write up your extended rationale, to be included in the [implementation] tag wiki. ;) – Bill the Lizard Dec 5 '12 at 1:26