13

is a mess. It contains all kinds of questions with the only common denominator that the International Organization for Standardization was somehow involved in specifying something that relates to the question somehow.

Some samples:

Most of those have (or should have) one or more more concrete tags that should be used (as noted above).

All in all, I'd say the tag is about as useful as .

I'm not saying it should be burninated, but ...

8
  • That dang computer does pop up occasionally. – ben is uǝq backwards Jun 10 '13 at 11:33
  • For a short moment I was already disappointed that there would be no questions about the camera setting, but thankfully there are! – Time Traveling Bobby Jun 10 '13 at 11:38
  • 5
    "I'm not saying it should be burninated, but ..." ...I think that nobody would care for that tag if there would be an accident...I'm not suggesting that the tag might have an accident, only that accidents happen...accidents which involve giant S-shaped dragons with one big arm, that is...oh forget it, I'm with you and I'll bring the torches. – Time Traveling Bobby Jun 10 '13 at 11:41
  • And consummate v's! – SomeShinyObject Jun 10 '13 at 12:01
  • 1
    Same thing would apply to ansi – mmmmmm Jun 10 '13 at 12:42
  • With ansi there's also ansi-sql. I agree that ANSI on it's own is a load of crap but it shouldn't just be removed wholesale @Mark. ANSI-SQL is useful and relevant. – ben is uǝq backwards Jun 10 '13 at 13:03
  • @benisuǝqbackwards I don't think the OP was asking for iso to be removed wholesale nor am I asking that ansi be removed just like that. For both all questions would have to be reviewed and retagged to the correct iso- and ansi- tags – mmmmmm Jun 10 '13 at 13:18
  • @Mark: actually I'm on the fence on this one: I think removing iso entirely would not do much damage. But I'm looking for a long-term solution and burnination would only be a first step. – Joachim Sauer Jun 10 '13 at 13:38
5

is a similar story. It means absolutely nothing unless you're talking about the processes for publishing one etc, which would be off-topic.

Like there are a number of specific RFC tags relating to individual RFCs. I like this, if you have a question about a specific set of standards it makes sense to tag it with that standard.

My preference in this scenario would be to re-tag all the questions that specifically ask about an individual standard with a tag relating to that standard. The only way I can imagine that tag being valid is if the question was about how to implement it, but I may be wrong there.

I would be against the blanket removal of or and all the others associated to them, but I suspect these tags are not warranted in the majority of situations.

Where the question isn't related to the International Organization for Standardization or Requests for Comment, I don't know what to do. It would seem as though people can't be trusted to use these tags sensibly so other tags should probably be created.

3
  • Did I read this right, you're against (mass-)removal, but acknowledge that questions about those tags (topics) are off-topic? – Time Traveling Bobby Jun 10 '13 at 13:13
  • 2
    I acknowledge that questions tagged solely with rfc or iso are most likely off-topic or very poorly tagged. I think that most of the questions tagged with the more specific tags are likely to not need them at all. That doesn't mean that the tag isn't relevant in certain circumstances. I suspect the rfc* ones will be more relevant than the iso* @M.NightDemonbobby – ben is uǝq backwards Jun 10 '13 at 13:20
  • Ah, okay, got you now. – Time Traveling Bobby Jun 10 '13 at 13:22
-2

Considering other file types have tags associated with them, (, , etc.) I think should only relate to the .iso file format.

As for the others, they're all referencing different ISO standards. Therefore they can probably all be categorised under one new tag:

Or each as their own ISO tag (some of which already exist):

7
  • You sure? I think that tag would be as helpful as programming-language...don't forget, tags should be able to stand on their own... – Time Traveling Bobby Jun 10 '13 at 12:02
  • 2
    I think defining iso to refer to .iso files only would still result in hundereds of badly tagged questions (as long as iso exists, people will mis-use it, no matter what its tag wiki says). – Joachim Sauer Jun 10 '13 at 12:03
  • @M.NightDemonbobby All the questions linked to are all the same thing though. Dates = ISO standard, encoding = ISO standard, film speed = ISO standard. – James Donnelly Jun 10 '13 at 12:05
  • iso-standards is definitely the more appropriate tag for the majority of those questions. But I'm questioning the usefulness and viability of iso specifically. I can't think of a way to define it that would avoid false-positives and false-negatives. – Joachim Sauer Jun 10 '13 at 12:06
  • 1
    @JamesDonnelly: sure, they're ISO standards. Unless you work for the ISO doing research on how many questions get asked about standards, how is having them all tagged the same remotely useful to anyone? – Wooble Jun 10 '13 at 12:07
  • @Wooble in that case people can simply tag the relative ISO number. The fact is that all of the questions linked (apart from the iOS typo and the .iso file format) are all ISO standards, and giving them an iso-standards tag groups them accordingly. – James Donnelly Jun 10 '13 at 12:08
  • @JamesDonnelly: and those do exists (iso-8859-1, iso-8583, iso9660 (that's the CD-ROM one), ...). I edited the question to mention some of those specific tags. – Joachim Sauer Jun 10 '13 at 12:10

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