A recent question was brought to my attention due to the "close" review queue, where it was about to be closed: What is the product of alpha decay of Curium-226?
I believe that textbook-erratum is one of the few meta tags, that actually make sense and I appreciate that we usually have the capability to clarify these situations. In the above mentioned case, the reason for closing was given as
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's based on a flawed premise and thus is unsolvable. – MARamezani
To me this the question itself is very similar to a case where you believe you found an error in a book. That is why I left the following comment:
I do not think that should be off topic. Many of the comments would suffice as an answer, stating why the question is flawed. We discuss textbook erratum often enough and from my standpoint this is a similar case. With given answers, we can also provide Joshua something more solid to go and talk to his teacher.
Admittedly, the question was not very well formulated, so that the original intend was somewhat unclear. From a deleted answer I finally extended the question to cover this.
As a result, it got me thinking, if it would not be appropriate to extend the scope of the tag to include these situations. Currently the tag wiki reads:
For questions that deal with a specific statement of a specified book. These questions should always include a complete reference:
Author(s), Initial(s): Year of publication, Title, Edition, Publisher, Place of Publication. (ISBN, URL if available) Add page number, table/ figure/ scheme accordingly
Author(s), Initial(s), Journal name Year of publication Volume number (Issue or part number), first (and last page) numbers (Title, DOI, URL if availabile) Add page number (for longer publications e.g. reviews), table/ figure/ scheme accordingly
online resource with perma-link (e.g. wikipedia)
I would like to extend the scope of this tag, to include exam papers/ tests, because I do not think the site would profit from another meta tag, basically stating the same thing with different words. I also thought about introducing a tag "erratum" and then linking textbook-erratum as a synonym, but I think, that is a little too general. What do you think?