What is the tag for? It looks like a candidate for burnination - touches:

Seems like an incohesive mess.

Is in the same ballpark? (only 7 questions...)

  • 5
    Before y'all bring out your bazookas, there is a legitimate use for the pure tag Commented Mar 13, 2013 at 23:28
  • 4
    Languages with odd names tend to get tags ending in "lang". pure-lang is probably the best thing to retag relevant questions with.
    – Charles
    Commented Mar 13, 2013 at 23:33
  • @Lorem: any actual questions that use this tag in that context? Commented Mar 13, 2013 at 23:38
  • @MartijnPieters I don't know; I'm not going tag diving now. Just leaving a hint/warning for those that want to... Commented Mar 13, 2013 at 23:43
  • @LoremIpsum - So far I'm seeing more of the Pure HTML/JSON templating framework than I am of that language. Commented Mar 14, 2013 at 2:32

2 Answers 2


I've gone through more than half of the questions formerly tagged , removing the label when it was clearly not necessary:

  • Thinigs like "pure HTML", "pure CSS", "pure JS", "pure Java", "pure Python", "pure Lua" I just removed it.
  • In instances of "pure virtual" questions, I changed it to

I took a chance and changed some tags from to either or . In some instances of questions about Fortran I changed it to and left a comment asking if my change makes sense.

I left several questions as-is, as I didn't feel I knew enough about the following topics (or technologies) to edit them:

  • The Pure HTML/JSON templating system
  • The Pure programming language
  • "Pure pointer notation"
  • Haskall concepts: "Pure Functional Programming"; "Pure Global Variable"; "Pure Computation"
  • The "Pure Java API" - is this a thing?
  • C++ pure_assert_impl
  • C# Pure code contracts
  • C++ pure/const

It is mostly being used as a meta tag:

But there is some non-meta use as well:

If you retag the questions in that last category, then you should burn it.

  • 2
    .Net has a [Pure] annotation as a code contract, the language D has a pure keyword and wikipedia recognizes "pure virtual functions" as a C++ concept. Those are non-meta as well, I think.
    – madth3
    Commented Mar 13, 2013 at 23:29
  • Not sure if all those deserve a tag though; if there are dedicated tags for them, use those instead, otherwise just remove the pure tag from those. Commented Mar 13, 2013 at 23:35
  • 3
    @madth3 - Then perhaps less generic (and less mistakable) tags are needed - pure-virtual-functions for example, instead of just pure Commented Mar 14, 2013 at 0:22
  • Edited the question in category #2 Commented Mar 14, 2013 at 0:23
  • Looks like there's already a pure-virtual tag meant for pure virtual functions. Commented Mar 14, 2013 at 2:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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