9

We have and . And also the related .

Shouldn't be merged into ?

What about - is it perhaps included in ?

(I'm sure of the first one, less so on the second.)

1
  • 4
    +1 always in favor of reducing the number of tags. Less is more :)
    – NofP
    Sep 24, 2019 at 10:12

3 Answers 3

12

and should be merged. The latter is a subset of the former. Neither has many questions (17 and 10) and they just aren't distinct enough to warrant the need for both.

seems different (out of 48 questions, only 3 are tagged with either habit tag). I'm okay with leaving it as is.

5

It seems to me that something along the lines of or would cover the , , and cases and express the intent more clearly. I agree that is a different subject.

8
  • habits could also refer to habitual word use, though, which is not covered by either tag proposal.
    – Weckar E.
    Sep 24, 2019 at 15:52
  • 2
    Oh geez I didn't even realize there was a discipline tag too. Yeah, that should be a synonym of habits.
    – Cyn
    Sep 24, 2019 at 16:00
  • 1
    I agree with you about the merging but didn't upvote because I'd rather see the more generic habits stay as the main tag. I'd put discipline as a synonym and merge the rest.
    – Cyn
    Sep 24, 2019 at 16:04
  • @Cyn There is such a thing as being too generic, though. if there are, as WeckarE. suggests, other types of habits, then we should distinguish them. And the other problem with generic tags is that people can be unsure what they apply to and may not use them as they should. I think work-habits is unambiguous and specific, and if there are other habits we should care about, they should be similarly disambiguated (linguistic-habits, perhaps.
    – user16226
    Sep 24, 2019 at 17:12
  • I agree with not getting too generic, but I don't think habits is that. It's not a widely used tag so I don't see a need to divide out types of habits (there's enough continuity to justify keeping them together; it's not an artificial category).
    – Cyn
    Sep 24, 2019 at 17:49
  • Agreed. If questions relating to other habits pop up we can give those tags as they come up.
    – Weckar E.
    Sep 25, 2019 at 17:30
  • 1
    I can see the "habits" ones staying distinct or merging (but merging is fine), but I feel Psychology of Writing is very distinct. Habits can cover, for example, both things you habitually do in the text ("How do I vary my sentence starts in a first person novel?") , or writer-habits ("I used to start writing sprints with a cup of coffee, but now I have to limit caffeine...what else can work?"). Psych of writing is about the writer, imho. "I'm afraid to start/fail/succeed." "My character needs XYZ, but that's too close to my own trauma." Sep 26, 2019 at 13:56
  • 1
    Perhaps a useful separation may be Writer vs Text? The ambiguity is the word "writing" can refer to the text itself or the action of the writer. So perhaps "Writer Psychology" may be a more clarifying rename, and the Habits ones should be divided into those of the writer, and those within the text? (I'm blanking on good distinguishing names, and the writer-one would ultimately be folded into Writer's Psych, imho?) Sep 26, 2019 at 13:58
-2

All three tags are distinct and should remain

I'll start by quoting the tag info for each tag.

  • : "Writing habits, routines, and systems for writing."

  • : "This tag should be used for questions that are searching for common techniques to combat bad writing habits that might hinder your progress."

  • : "This tag should be used for questions that deal with the psychological aspects of the task of writing something, such as when asking about the feelings you have before, during and after your writing or about the psychological background of getting yourself to work by for example setting goals and treating yourself to for example cookies after you have finished your current writing goal."

To me, each of these serves a unique role, though there is certainly overlap I believe they are distinct enough from each other to remain.

is about the things that we do, though I am only so-so about its existance and would never use it myself I don't think it is a bad tag and it does aptly describe most of the questions where is it used.

is about the techniques to fix our bad habits, not about the habits themselves. Though very related I don't believe they are the same topic. In fact I feel this tag has as much or more to do with as it does with .

is a different tag entirely. Where the other two tags are about what we do this tag focuses on the why and the how of the writing craft. I feel it does have some crossover with the tag but not with the habit tags above.

2
  • 1
    Is your suggestion to make breaking bad habits a synonym of discipline?
    – NofP
    Sep 24, 2019 at 10:11
  • @NofP I'm not suggesting it. But I am saying that you could make an equally good case to merge it as you can to merge with habits therefore it should be merged with neither.
    – linksassin Mod
    Sep 25, 2019 at 1:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://writing.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2217/habits-tags-do-we-need-them-all
writing.meta.stackexchange.com
CC-MAIN-2024-18
139096
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:SC2EG7JS2IGIWSZONPYPQ6GFD53PR7W4
<urn:uuid:00c296b8-2661-4726-bcb4-2b730583e251>
2024-04-25T08:43:23Z
104.18.43.226
text/html
sha1:CQ3ALUJSSKWFGC3GS3NBFXUASD66YABA
<urn:uuid:ef1f1904-4fb1-4ee5-8feb-6d20cf4fe250>
https://writing.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2217/habits-tags-do-we-need-them-all
response
<urn:uuid:48762045-df29-4783-9d2e-6352c560609e>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-18
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-82
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/