-5
$\begingroup$

If I wanted to ask a question on meta about the FAQ, how would I tag it as such? I can't use the tag since that's used for tagging actual FAQ posts. So in such case, would a be necessary to identify such questions?

$\endgroup$
10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that we also have faq-proposed. $\endgroup$
    – user7951
    Aug 18 '17 at 17:19
  • $\begingroup$ The faq-proposed has no tag wiki so I don't know what it's about. But I'm not talking about proposing a post for the FAQ, I'm talking about a situation for asking a question regarding the FAQ, not an addition to it. $\endgroup$ Aug 18 '17 at 17:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think discussion is probably sufficient. $\endgroup$
    – NotEvans.
    Aug 18 '17 at 17:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Let's not have meta-meta tags... meta doesn't need to be excessively formalised and regulated. $\endgroup$
    – orthocresol Mod
    Aug 18 '17 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ @orthocresol Why is this so? What's wrong with having meta as formalized? $\endgroup$ Aug 19 '17 at 1:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Because this place is meant for free discussion - telling people how to discuss stuff can stifle it. Regarding meta-meta tags, I just think we don't need another level of abstraction, everybody here is a human and can understand what you're talking about without having to rely on a tag to provide context. $\endgroup$
    – orthocresol Mod
    Aug 19 '17 at 7:14
  • $\begingroup$ @orthocresol Wouldn't organizing questions about a certain thing be useful? After all, why do we have tags in meta anyway? $\endgroup$ Aug 19 '17 at 7:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just my opinion... $\endgroup$
    – orthocresol Mod
    Aug 19 '17 at 7:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ [support] does what you want sufficiently. [discussion] is just [support+bug+feature-request], so it might work as well. Anyway, I think you're stressing yourself way too much about how to tag. The tag list under the question doesn't need to explain the entirety of the question. Plus, few people would show interest in learning about the FAQ, or the fact that [omg-i-just-sneezed], so neither of those make sense as a tag. $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Aug 19 '17 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ @M.A.R I guess I just felt a little queasy putting just one tag for the question. $\endgroup$ Aug 20 '17 at 14:56
3
$\begingroup$

For questions regarding site guidelines or our self-imposed policies, including the FAQ, there are two mechanisms available:

  1. If you have a question regarding the applicability of certain guidelines, i.e. understanding parts of it, please open a question.

  2. If you question the validity of such a guideline, want to extend, reduce, or otherwise change it, open a question.

In any case, link back to and quote the particular part.

Meta (chemistry) is in principle on free form, open (ended) discussion forum concerning the main site (and its dependents). You might already know, that I'm not a fan of too many regulations, as they usually inhibit evolution and restrict progress, and especially make it harder for newer users to join. Therefore I think there is no need to overregulate it. It's also not as flooded as the main page; the total number of questions does not exceed 600 questions at the moment. As such I doubt that a meta-meta-tag is necessary for further classification of categorisation. Additionally there is already a tag requirement sufficiently grouping similar questions. There is no problem with questions having only one of these tags.


The is indeed for posts that shall, after lengthy consideration of the community, be transformed into FAQ posts.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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