What to do with these tags?

Question

I've started looking at the first few tags that people are using, and I think that we should keep a close eye on this. Here's a few tags that I propose to "erase" or modify:

• embedded-schema: delete, there is already a schema tag.
• configuration: delete, too generic. To discuss whether we should have "<module>-configuration" tags EDIT As mentioned in Glenn's answer, we'll keep this one but it should never be used by itself. Use cmeconfiguration and not configuration by itself.
• deployment: delete, too generic. Deployment may mean a lot of different things in Tridion, and none of the things that comes to my mind means the same that the poster had in mind
• polling: delete. Only used by Transport, right?
• long-running: delete.
• extension-model: too generic. Everything in Tridion can be extended, and the model will be different depending on what you are extending. If we must identify that something is an extension, then I propose to use "extensions" instead of "extension-model"
• communicator: I didn't even know of the communicator until about 2 months ago, as it is a (rather important) small part of the CME. I'm not sure if there's enough volume of communicator issues or questions to justify its own tag, I'd rather use cme instead.
• wcf: rename to core-service? Or maybe question is specific to how WCF does something rather than the Tridion Core Service? Makes sense to keep wcf for questions that are WCF-related. CoreService != WCF.
• customurls: rename to custom-url?
• external-integrations: is the word "external" required? Doesn't integrations already implies it is with something else than Tridion?
• custom-events: rename to event-system?

Opinions? Leave them below as an answer.

In addition: would we be allowed to copy the definitions for a common tag (for instance xml) from StackOverflow?

Answer 1

It is not necessarily bad to have ‘generic’ tags in some cases.

Based on what I have seen with editors of my company’s websites, I think having more generic terms could reduce the confusion, hesitation and doubt people may have when deciding which tags to apply to their questions. For instance, tagging a question about CME Configuration with both the cme and configuration tags may actually be more intuitive to a poster then tagging the question cme-configuration.

Generic terms would seem to make it easier for community members to monitor areas of interest to them. If I am interested in questions about configuration I would rather be able to follow just configuration then cme-configuration, exp-configuration, powertools-configuration etc. Likewise if someone is interested in questions about the cme I would think they would rather be able to follow cme then having to follow cme-configuration, cme-operations,cme-extensions

With that said, I agree with all your proposed changes except for:

• configuration which I think should be kept for the reasons outlined above
• wcf which I think should be kept as wcf and core services are two different things.

Answer 2

anguilla -> delete (we have gui-extensions already which covers the same and is clearer)

wcf -> delete? doesn't core-service cover this?

extensions or extension-model -> both are too broad for my taste. There are so many types of extensions nowadays, both in CM and CD. I'd rather see tags like gui-extensions, event-system, custom-resolver, custom-storage, etc.

Answer 3

I would keep embedded-schema, although it should be renamed or a synonym be created named embeddable-schema (that's the official name). It can be related to the schema tag. It could give some more detail on Schema related questions, on the other hand, it will probably also be clear enough to tag those questions with just Schema indeed.

configuration -> undecided, based on Glenn's explanation I would agree to keep it

deployment-> delete

long-running -> delete

extension-model -> replace with extensions

communicator -> replace with cme (optionally would be to make it a synonym of CME)

wcf -> rename to core-service (although WCF as a tag itself might be appropriate at some point, but should not create confusion with core-service)

Answer 4

how about using some of the terms that come from Tridion reference, for example, deployer or presentation-server

things that people relate to when dealing with Tridion first hand

Answer 5

Except embedded-schema, for remaining tags I will go with you.

• embedded-schema: Better it should be made as a synonyms for Schema