16

I had suggested the burnination of the tag and that green dragon came to save the day. I was editing a question about pairs and thought that the would be nice. On second thought I said to myself who is ever going to use as search term. Despite that, I wanted to see if a relevant tag existed.

I got DO NOT USE in the wiki of the tag with a reference to this deleted question. As a result, I am posting this question. I will edit the wiki to contain bold font. However, someone may not see it, so it would be better to be burninated.

So, I would like to summon the SO dragon:

tag burninated

Relevant: When to burninate?


So we do not delete the tag, we just keep it until some years pass over again and someone finds it again by chance?

8
  • 7
    It's been three years. We haven't been able to get rid of a tag that was part of an "official" tag cleanup in three years? May 28, 2015 at 12:18
  • @RobertHarvey to who are you talking? In the community I guess. Anyway, better late than never, that's why I thought it would be helpful to post this question, as a reminder. :)
    – gsamaras
    May 28, 2015 at 12:23
  • Note that moderators don't have the ability to "burninate" tags. SE does, but they have not shown a willingness to do this on a regular basis. There is no dragon, in other words. May 28, 2015 at 12:31
  • @RobertHarvey the tag I mentioned in my previous quretion was burninated, so I hope this will too. Maybe the dragon appears only in special cases. :)
    – gsamaras
    May 28, 2015 at 12:39
  • 6
    Maybe we should set up a quick burnination crew in the Tag Burnination chat room and get rid of them all in one go. It shouldn't really take long...
    – Unihedron
    May 28, 2015 at 14:51
  • @RobertHarvey Same for [context]. Related meta post: meta.stackoverflow.com/q/295641/3488231
    – user12205
    May 31, 2015 at 9:36
  • An SEDE query that lists all tags that start with "Do not use" in their tag wiki excerpts. Disclaimer: there are false positives.
    – user12205
    May 31, 2015 at 10:04
  • 1
    @BhargavRao The [pair] tag is one post away from being disambiguated... Mar 10, 2019 at 21:41

1 Answer 1

12

Yes, has no clear defined meaning. It should not be used.

But that doesn't mean it should be burninated. Instead, most of those questions should be re-tagged to:

5
  • 5
    Doesn't burninating involve retagging to the proper tags, for those questions which have (or should have) one? May 28, 2015 at 17:18
  • 1
    @Deduplicator: Ideally yes, but to me "burnination" focuses more on removal of a tag than re-tagging (like "cleanup" does). The point of my answer was that pair lacks a clear definition and needs to be split up, but most of the questions that use it can indeed use some kind of pair-tag.
    – Bergi
    May 28, 2015 at 18:10
  • tl;dr burninate the pair tag by retagging with other tags?
    – Braiam
    May 29, 2015 at 3:32
  • @Bergi I am OK with the re-tagging. But after that, I do not see a reason not to burninate the tag. Practically, I think the trade-off between some questions (most of them are poor) loosing the pair tag won't hurt at all, while if the tag remains active, users will use it again and again (like they already did, despite the clear wiki message DO NOT USE! If this tag does not get deleted now, there might be a chance that it will be forgotten again!
    – gsamaras
    May 29, 2015 at 11:11
  • 1
    Burnination always involves re-tagging the effected questions with appropriate tags and cleaning up other issues. Sometimes this means creating new, more focused tags. Jun 1, 2015 at 17:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/295466/unpair-the-pair
meta.stackoverflow.com
CC-MAIN-2023-14
123558
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:YOLPSWOWF6T4ZJAV6VSPHOQRWAR6UUG6
<urn:uuid:ff9d290f-253a-489d-9a77-ada3d80c453e>
2023-03-24T00:19:39Z
151.101.65.69
text/html
sha1:ES2IY2Z3MHA5BQJJBNOWSAGKXJXB4YWO
<urn:uuid:6af76d28-4373-47d3-9464-aac14d7a02ac>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/295466/unpair-the-pair
response
<urn:uuid:19cc7b12-9877-4df6-95f1-e629b0d91d9a>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-14
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for March/April 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-253
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-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/