It does not get more meta than this tag. It does not add anything new to the question.

There are currently 19 questions tagged and in nine cases it is also tagged , which is also a meta tag with (almost ?) the same scope. The other cases are either just plainly missing the tag or are off-topic anyway (primarily opinion based/ t[o]n broad, n∈{2 .. ∞}). There are two legit uses of , according to our scope extension, that just don't need this tag.

I would propose retagging to ref-req where absolutely necessary (to not bump old questions) and silent death of .

There has already been a discussion about allowing book questions in the first place: Should we allow books questions?

Have a few examples:

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sounds good to me. Let it go. Btw, I just gave the 3rd question a first stab in the back :-) $\endgroup$ May 21 '15 at 10:05
  • $\begingroup$ As far as I remember three stabs from three different people are necessary or a superstab from a diamond person. I cannot stab yet. But the bot should clean the orphaned question soon. $\endgroup$ May 21 '15 at 10:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hearty +1 to this. $\endgroup$ May 21 '15 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ I grabbed the two erratum questions, as I think those were a slam dunk for removing the tag. $\endgroup$
    – jonsca
    May 21 '15 at 23:49
  • $\begingroup$ I really think reference-requests offer a lot of bang for the buck, so to speak. They require relatively short answers, and they put the asker on route to learn a great deal. However, requests for 'good books', etc. are subjective questions, and this site doesn't deal with those kinds of questions. Accordingly, perhaps we ought to require reference requests to specify what they want in a reference: what qualifies a book as a 'good book on x' according to the asker. That way, the question can actually be objectively-satisfactorily answered. $\endgroup$
    – Hal
    May 30 '15 at 21:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .