Expanding the definition of future SE sites (specifically, discussing tagging)

Question

It seems to me that there's no possibility of discussing the details of area 51 proposals that are in the commitment phase, and this feels a bit shortsighted. Specifically, I was concerned with how tagging will work in the gaming proposal - tag per game? Per gaming studio? Per genre? Per post type? In my opinion it deserves some discussion, and I'm sure other issues in other proposals also require more discussion as well.

Tagging is not covered in the example questions, however, and letting the beta go up with such things still undefined might cause something of a mess.

Answer 1

As one person also invested in Gaming, I know just how you are feeling. It's these kind of discussions that made me ask whether we would have the Third Place in time for the Beta. The general discussion has always been that the early parts of the Beta Phase will be where we nail down things like the FAQ, site policies, design knikwacks, and other portions. I think that with Gaming specifically, we will spend a lot of time discussing the tagging we will have to do, and how we plan to handle it. I personally like "per game" but then tagging the game Mukashi Mukashi Arutokoro ni Totetsumonaku Naka no Warui Twintail no Shimai Himesama ga Irasshaimashitatosa would be a nightmare (thankfully, I doubt we'd ever get questions about that game).

So to that end, as Robert explains in the linked post, we will have our Meta to discuss these kinds of issues. Personally, I find it will be a suitable domain for this task, though I think that extending that private beta be a bit longer than 1 week might help. Just for structure purposes.

We're hurt less by the time in Commitment Phase than it is the wait for the Beta Phase to be ready. I think that we don't need necessarily to improve the Commitment Phase because it won't necessarily be as long in the future.

Answer 2

In all reality, the Gaming site should already be in beta where you would be discussing these things. It's only is because the system is still under development that you aren't discussing these issues already.

You're itching to get onto the business of discussing the details of the site because your at that point in the process. You've defined the site, you have the audience, it's time to get to work.

But your assertion that you should have had these discussions before now doesn't apply to Area 51 in the general case. You are looking at Area 51 through the cherry-picked example of a Gaming site. Most proposals — emphasis on the word "proposals" — are not as pre-destined to become sites as Gaming. What you are suggesting is that emerging communities should have detailed discussions about countless issues (like whether there should be one type of tagging over another) before everyone has even decided whether there should be a site at all.

Answer 3

The way I see the gaming tagging, is the most "natural" tags for example, for gaming, I would say, games per IP (Interlectual Property), per system (if exclusive or applicable), etc... The name of the game should be the least preferable tag in this series.

For non-exact game questions per genre ([rpg], [action-adventure], [shooter])

and some service tags ([spoiler] for example, (to be put in the ignore list)

For example:

• How Many different versions of the PlayStation 3 are there [sony] [ps3]
• How do I beat Bowser in Super Mario Galaxy 2 [mario] [wii]
• Are there any recent old-school Sonic Games [sega] [sonic] [2D] [side-scolling]
• Should I ignore leveling with Aeris in FFVII [final-fantasy] [playstation] [psn] [spoiler]

(Yes, i'm committed to the gaming proposal! And so should you!)