10

The tag includes a jumble of questions concerning different concepts of titles, making the tag less than useful.

  1. Questions about the name given to part or whole of a creative work, e.g.

  2. Questions about honorifics and styles, e.g.

  3. Questions about occupations and professions, e.g.

  4. Questions about labels or names in general, e.g.

I perceive a slight preponderance of questions of type #1, and believe that should be the purpose of the tag. I am inclined to retag questions of type #2 as , type #3 as , and type #4 as , , or others as may be appropriate.

Am I correct in that the original intent of is for essays and not essayists or essaying?

  • Hmm. All three of my examples for type #1 relate to capitalization. That was not intentional, and suggests other problems may exist. – choster Dec 17 '14 at 23:10
6

One way of finding what a tag was originally intended for — probably the only way without any tag wiki — is to look at the earliest questions. Very often, a number of questions will have been retagged with the new tag when it was created, and these example questions can only be those in existence at that time. The earliest questions are at the end of the “newest” list.

The earliest questions are

Then things start to go off the rails a bit.

I suspect the tag was created in March 2011, and it was intended for the titles of books and articles. It looks like it was not intended for names or honorifics.

I think new tags should always be accompanied by at least a tag wiki excerpt if not the full page to avoid just this sort of misinterpretation.

1

You are correct in that "title" is for things like title case and the like. The others should be re-tagged as appropriate. You might want to add a tag wiki to explain the purpose of the tag as well.

You must log in to answer this question.

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