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:

  • : delete, there is already a tag.
  • : 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 and not by itself.
  • : 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
  • : delete. Only used by Transport, right?
  • : delete.
  • : 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"
  • : 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 instead.
  • : rename to core-service? Or maybe question is specific to how WCF does something rather than the Tridion Core Service? Makes sense to keep for questions that are WCF-related. CoreService != WCF.
  • : rename to custom-url?
  • : is the word "external" required? Doesn't already implies it is with something else than Tridion?
  • : rename to ?

Opinions? Leave them below as an answer.

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

  • I kind of like short tags, so perhaps just module-config instead of module-configuration Commented Feb 21, 2013 at 5:55
  • It would be interesting to know what Anna Lear and Robert Cartaino have observed with regards to this on other SE sites. Commented Feb 21, 2013 at 12:46
  • 1
    This question makes me wish my company’s taxonomist/library scientist wasn’t on vacation this week. Commented Feb 21, 2013 at 12:46
  • 1
    Does it make me "old-skool" if I prefer events-system to event-system, or just a pedant? I know "event system" seems to be more popular usage these days, but still. Start as we mean to go on? Commented Feb 24, 2013 at 12:42
  • I think the question makes you Dominic Cronin! :-P Care to debate schema vs. schemas and criteria vs. criterion vs. criterias. Commented Mar 6, 2013 at 23:49

5 Answers 5


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 and tags may actually be more intuitive to a poster then tagging the question .

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 then , , etc. Likewise if someone is interested in questions about the cme I would think they would rather be able to follow then having to follow , ,

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

  • which I think should be kept for the reasons outlined above
  • which I think should be kept as and core services are two different things.
  • for the [module]-configuration tags I do propose [module]-config too like Chris suggested, but I guess it also makes sense to add a generic configuration, based on your explananation Commented Feb 21, 2013 at 12:54
  • If I could I'd upvote you again. Great suggestions Glenn, and good catch on configuration being something that some people may want to track
    – Nuno Linhares Mod
    Commented Feb 22, 2013 at 3:02

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.

  • 1
    OK on Anguilla. Not OK on WCF/Core-Service. For most Tridion people, Core Service is the reason why we learned WCF, but if you're an actual WCF guru, Core Service is just a service... Things like transactionality are provided by WCF, but can be used in CS. OK on the rest.
    – Nuno Linhares Mod
    Commented Feb 22, 2013 at 13:41
  • Agreed. My reasoning was that wcf questions are not really tridion related at all, but that would mean we would have to ban those questions altogether, which would be a tad exaggerated..
    – Quirijn
    Commented Feb 23, 2013 at 17:58

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)


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


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

  • embedded-schema: Better it should be made as a synonyms for Schema
  • I'd rather keep embedded-schema as is than make it a synonym for schema. Synonyms imply they're the same. For example, we'd probably want template-building-blocks to be distinct from component-templates (even if we generalize both under "template" or "templating"). Commented Feb 20, 2013 at 18:35
  • If we go down that route, then we will end up with another tag for "parameter-schema" or "bundle-type-schema", etc. Might become too specific, and I don't really think it needs to. This is a community effort though, so let's do it by what we all think is right.
    – Nuno Linhares Mod
    Commented Feb 20, 2013 at 18:53
  • 1
    Aye, I am fine with fewer tags and just using schema and just template. I feel "synonym" shouldn't be mistaken for "related to." In other words, an embedded-schema is a schema, but not all schemas are embedded. They're really not synonyms. :-) Commented Feb 25, 2013 at 8:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .