45

I just came across the tag. 130 questions, no wiki.

  1. Does it describe the contents of the questions to which it is applied? and is it unambiguous?

There's a trend, but... here's a few meanings with example questions:

Most of these are a sub-genre of , so in a way, could be seen as a generalisation of .
The most accurate definition I can come up with is "any kind of physical or digital location that is not a singleton".
Given that the wiki of already says to use more specific tags instead, I consider this to be an argument against having the tag.

  1. Is the concept described even on-topic for the site?

Depends entirely on additional information.
Most of the questions in the tag seem on-topic though.

  1. Does the tag add any meaningful information to the post?

Nope. See the last example in point 1.

  1. Does it mean the same thing in all common contexts?

See 1.


Of the top 30 answerers, only one has answered two questions tagged . Of the top 30 questioners, only two have asked two questions tagged . This suggests strongly that expertise in whatever the tag is supposed to represent is completely tangential (incidental) to the tag. Only one question was asked in the last 30 days; since there are no answers in the last 30 days, that is presumably an unanswered question. These considerations strongly suggest that the tag should be burninated.


Can Trogdor burninate the country?

16
  • it looks like a healthy tag which has so few bad apples in the basket, which should be removed or deleted like on everys other tag
    – nbk
    Sep 6 at 19:28
  • 14
    @nbk Healthy? With no wiki I don't know what it's supposed to mean. If it's websites it's a meta-tag and adds zero information to the post. If it's geographical locations there are better tags. Sep 6 at 19:45
  • healthy means that the questions get answered and have upvotes, you quoted links are only some bad example amung good ones
    – nbk
    Sep 6 at 19:47
  • 25
    @nbk calling it a "healthy tag" implies that the tag helps in making the questions healthy. I challenge that assumption.
    – Siguza
    Sep 6 at 20:29
  • youi made your point and i gave good replies why it can stay.
    – nbk
    Sep 6 at 20:36
  • Interesting for the "Google sites" example, there are dozens, if not hundreds of "google-<qualifier>" tags, including "google-sheets" which the OP found, but then missed finding google-sites (Suggest re-tag properly). Same for "django-sites'. There are 9 'alfresco-<qualifier>" tags but not "alfresco-sites". Perhaps contributing issue is if you filter tags (stackoverflow.com/tags), you only ever see the 36 results, so hard to discover if a tag exists? And in Ask Question (stackoverflow.com/questions/ask), tags filter returns last 6, with no indication there are more
    – Ian W
    Sep 6 at 23:04
  • 8
    Also, most tags with no associated wiki are inherently ambiguous and subject to misuse.
    – Ian W
    Sep 6 at 23:05
  • I assume you have some sort of thesis in this question. It would be good to lead with some sort of argument or question or clearly stated theory. Apparently you have some trouble with the use of "sites", but what exactly is unclear. Also "sites" is not a generalization of "web". Use of "site" to describe a place on the web rather old. And of course this site and visitors are much concerned with the web. Perhaps you are objecting to use of "site" that are not web-sites, or want references to sites on the web as more specific form (i.e. "websites")? Or?? Sep 7 at 16:51
  • 7
    @PrestonL.Bannister the argument is clear: this tag isn't a "specific, well-defined category" which all tags should be.
    – Braiam
    Sep 7 at 19:13
  • 3
    Alternate title suggestion: "Trogdor has his [sites] set on burnination"
    – TylerH
    Sep 7 at 20:39
  • 1
    @10Rep : youtube.com/watch?v=90X5NJleYJQ
    – jat255
    Sep 8 at 1:14
  • 6
    Why on earth is the focus on catchy titles for burnination requests a thing? Focus ppl. The tag is garbage. Let her burn.
    – max
    Sep 8 at 7:18
  • 2
    @max While I agree, sadly this is the process. Try to make fun of the tag, then maybe, someone does actually something about the tag.
    – Braiam
    Sep 8 at 12:21
  • 3
    @PrestonL.Bannister this question is tagged [burninate-request], you might not be familiar with the process.
    – Didier L
    Sep 8 at 23:28
  • 1
    [sites] are off-topic for the site
    – Didier L
    Sep 8 at 23:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/411322/burninate-the-countrysites
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-43
145730
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:OTFD62X5WTVIO35DMW4PGNIJ7TZSNPKF
<urn:uuid:b3ba0716-e2a2-4554-a263-f09d7484303b>
2021-10-16T03:58:29Z
151.101.193.69
text/html
sha1:HOKVGPIVNSG7AIFAJN7DK5AUN32SULIA
<urn:uuid:8f0aa96d-c918-49a5-a646-a3ab48cd8a42>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/411322/burninate-the-countrysites
response
<urn:uuid:ecaa76c3-1af9-497f-bcf2-183235e49146>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-43
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-16
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-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/