If you start the title of a question with a construction like "[tag]", you get a red box telling you that:

Title contains a [tag] prefix; please use the tag field to enter tags instead.

And so, I can't title this post "[tag] prohibition in titles on meta sites is inappropriate". A travesty!

This blocking dialog is certainly appropriate on all main sites, but is not appropriate on meta sites (child and Meta.SE alike), where "[tag]" may legitimately be used at the beginning of a post title to refer to the main-site tag "[tag]". Enclosing tag names in square brackets is a somewhat-established convention (I guess because that's how you search for them), which is why I tried to do that.

Yes, I know I can work around this by rephrasing my title so that the tag name is not at the beginning of the title, or by not enclosing the tag name in brackets. Still should be changed, in my opinion.

  • 7
    You need to prefix the title with "problem" – random Mar 30 '15 at 17:42
  • 2
    I'm trying to imagine a title (other than one reporting this issue) that would need to start with [tag] and wouldn't be a misunderstanding of what tags are for. Can you edit in some examples that are not self-referential? – Kate Gregory Mar 30 '15 at 18:01
  • 2
    @KateGregory Well, there's the title in the screenshot, for one, which is an actual title I tried to use, thus prompting this post here. "[identification-request] is being inappropriately applied in a number of cases", where I'm making a meta post about a particular main-site tag being misused. Or, perhaps, I might want to make a post like "[foo] and [bar] should be synonymized", or "[qux] is a bad meta-tag and we should get rid of it". – senshin Mar 30 '15 at 18:03
  • 1
    this isn't really a bug is it? More like feature-request to disable this 'feature' on meta sites...? – ᔕᖺᘎᕊ Mar 30 '15 at 18:14
  • @ᔕᖺᘎᕊ Yeah, I guess this is more feature-request-y. I'll retag. – senshin Mar 30 '15 at 18:34

Special-casing rules on meta sites is a pain. Sometimes, it's necessary; I don't see that's the case here.

Keep in mind, even on main sites folks are encouraged to put tags in their titles when the tag-name is relevant somehow - it's prefixing that's discouraged. So you'd write, "How can I get the current location using Android?" instead of "[android] [location] HOWTO: get current?"

Do the same thing here. And leave off the square-brackets. "The identification-request tag is being applied inappropriately" works just fine.


What's wrong with:

The "identification-request" tag is being inappropriately applied in a number of cases


Given that stopping people using tags in titles is a really good thing, not being able to use them legitimately "now and then" is surely acceptable?

How would they identify what is legit and what isn't?
Too much complications for very little return IMO

  • Nothing, like I mentioned in my post. – senshin Mar 30 '15 at 18:34
  • Do you think that there would be issues with people using tags incorrectly on meta sites? And, to be clear, I am not proposing that there be any effort to identify which uses are "legitimate" and which are not. What complications do you think would result from just turning off this particular wordfilter? – senshin Mar 30 '15 at 18:57
  • 1
    There is effort to identify them. Someone has to edit it, or suggested edit and then a bunch of reviews in a queue. Whereas we can currently just put as per example in my answer, no problem, job done. I just don't see the value in allowing it VS not allowing it, is all. How many people would use this incorrectly where we'd have to edit/fix (X), and how many would get legit use from it (Y)? Y would have to be hugely greater than X for this to be worth the dev work + moderating. Besides, I think X would become fairly high, and Y would remain very low. – James Mar 30 '15 at 19:17
  • I don't understand what you're saying. Who has to edit what, and why? – senshin Mar 30 '15 at 19:39
  • 1
    when someone uses a tag in a title illegitimately. – James Mar 30 '15 at 19:41
  • 1
    Okay, so to clarify - is your position that if this prohibition were removed, that there would be a flood of people incorrectly using tags in titles on meta sites, to a great enough degree that the amount of editing needed to remove them outweighs the benefits of allowing titles like "[foo] and [bar] should be synonymized"? If so, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't think this would be an issue on meta sites - but neither of us has any actual data. – senshin Mar 30 '15 at 19:46
  • 1
    I thought I was clear. Where did I even remotely mention "A flood of"? I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, because I think this is a pointless request for what good it serves – James Mar 30 '15 at 19:49
  • You said that you "think X would become fairly high". If my use of slightly different language to describe that bothers you, I'm sorry you feel that way. – senshin Mar 30 '15 at 19:51
  • 1
    "fairly high", in context and in the grand scheme of things with everything considered (total questions per week, etc), maybe 1 or 2 a month. "A flood of" in any context means "a massive amount in sweeping quantities". I suppose "fairly high" is a bit generic. I just meant maybe a few a month. This is a pointless debate anyway, neither of us could know accurately how many of either will occur. Tho, it's not actually "necessary" to use the tag in a title, whereas people might use it incorrectly. – James Mar 30 '15 at 20:45
  • meta.stackexchange.com/posts/252595/revisions - Within 2 days of our discussing it – James Apr 2 '15 at 14:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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