When reviewing in the edit queue, I constantly come across tag wiki edits like the following example:


The tag wiki that the person wrote was entirely about dialog boxes

I personally don't think that we need a tag about dialog boxes, but If we did, than I have nothing against the edit in question.

I personally don't know what to do with these, so I normally just skip them.

How do I handle these new tag edits? What traits am I looking for?

  • 5
    A separate issue, but that particular example is copypasta from Wikipedia anyways.
    – jscs
    Commented Mar 27, 2013 at 17:01
  • 1
    But the source is cited at least.
    – Mike
    Commented Mar 27, 2013 at 17:08
  • @Mike: It is? I don't see it.
    – jscs
    Commented Mar 27, 2013 at 17:36
  • @Josh - at the bottom it lists 3 references, first one says [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialog_box
    – Mike
    Commented Mar 27, 2013 at 17:58
  • 1
    @Mike: Those are Markdown links; to call them a list of sources seems like a stretch to me, especially since they're not visible in the rendered wiki: stackoverflow.com/tags/dialog/info Further, for the second two, it doesn't matter that they're listed, because those sources don't allow verbatim use of their content.
    – jscs
    Commented Mar 27, 2013 at 18:12

2 Answers 2


There's a number of steps I take when reviewing tag wikis:

  1. The first thing I do is check to see if it is copied text without a source. Sometimes it should be obvious from the wall of text, but it's also pretty easy to confirm; just copy-and-paste into Google, and if you get any hits in the first four or five links, reject as "Copied Content".

  2. If it's not copied text, see if it follows the Tag Wiki guidelines and is helpful or not. If not, reject as "Excerpt/Wiki Not Helpful"

  3. Not bored yet? Good! If it's not copied and it appears to be helpful, make sure the text actually applies to the tag. In the case of an ambiguous tags, make sure someone isn't assigning a single meaning to a tag that is currently has multiple meanings. If this is the case, reject with a custom message.

  4. Assuming you've made it this far, go look at some of the recent questions for the tag. If the tag wiki seems to match up with the questions being asked, and it appears to be useful (or you're familiar with the subject matter and it is useful and correct), go ahead and approve it.

  5. Still not sure? Just skip it, and move on.

For me, I end up skipping or rejecting far more than I approve, but I think it's appropriate to take your time on reviewing these. Do I spend too much effort on reviewing these? Maybe, but I know there's a very good chance I'm not mis-approving something.


While in that queue, you are reviewing the tag edits. If that's correct (it isn't now), you should just accept that edit.

But if you don't like the tag (e.g. you don't think it belongs on SO), you go to this meta site and create a question in which you tell us why you think the tag should be removed. You need to tag this with or . The community will respond on that question and a moderator/10K+ user will create a tag synonym or delete the tag.

  • This one is not correct, it should have been rejected for plagiarism. Commented Mar 27, 2013 at 17:07
  • @MartijnPieters I do say that: ("If that's correct (it isn't now) [...]"( I posted a general answer to these cases, because the starter asked a general question, not specific about that specific case.
    – Wouter J
    Commented Mar 27, 2013 at 17:09
  • Just making it more explicit. Commented Mar 27, 2013 at 17:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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