was created today on Stack Overflow and is being applied to older posts. Is this tag a helpful tag and should it be applied to older posts?


I'm not in favor of this use of tags.

Yes, we do have a few book tags like . But these are notable books. Unless you can demonstrate that "Learn C the Hard Way" is in the same league as, say, Kernighan and Ritchie, allowing such tags opens the door for a tag for every possible book title, and the shoddy questions that follow ("What does this sentence in this book mean?").

Tags are not designed for this. Tags are meant to categorize questions, not to identify specific artifacts like book titles, motherboard part numbers, or even specific software versions except under certain narrow circumstances.

If you really have a question about something in a particular book like "Learn You a Haskell," just put the book title in the question.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    To be fair, sicp only has 137 questions. I don't even know that book deserves it. Maybe the GoF, but in the end, it's just all too subjective. I think we should probably not have specific book tags altogether. We have the same problem when trying to create lists of books and vote on them. What do those votes mean? The point being, we don't have a solid definition of what "notable" is, so we shouldn't have book tags, period. – casperOne Dec 18 '12 at 17:13
  • 2
    Also, we kind of endorsed books having their own tags. Apparently, we might have to revisit it. – casperOne Dec 18 '12 at 17:15
  • 1
    Worth noting: it appears that Reto Meier never bothered to create the tag for his book. – user102937 Dec 18 '12 at 17:21
  • Given that question is more than six months old, it's quite possible that there was only ever one question with it and the reaper took care of it. That or it was otherwise mysteriously disappeared. By force. – Charles Dec 18 '12 at 20:24

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