6

we have 212 questions containing the keyword Trump, many of them focussing if things he did or ordered are legal.

That's more than our Treelaw questions, so a trump category of questions might be worth an investment.

On the other hand, a category like that would require a similar tag for questions on other presidents actions and their legal ramifications, for example, one might need to sift through Nixon (17), Obama (33) & Clinton (20)

6
  • 1
    treelaw seems totally unnecessary, both of those questions are covered by topics around access, trespass, "the right to a good view" and similar. – Nij Jan 5 at 23:01
  • @Nij r/Treelaw ? – Trish Jan 6 at 0:03
  • 2
    I presume you're mention r/ for a reason, but this being SE (that is, not Reddit) you'll need to make its relevance more explicit. – Nij Jan 6 at 2:29
  • 1
    @Nij it's a reference to the fact that cutting down trees in the neighbor's yard can be so expensive, it costs you the house. – Trish Jan 6 at 3:11
  • The question demonstrates how easy it is for a user to find Q&A containing a particular name using the built-in search function. The same is not true of all subject tags. – feetwet Jan 6 at 17:18
  • 1
    Can anyone be an expert on "Trump"? – Polygnome Jan 13 at 15:53
11

I'd suggest steering clear of tags for natural persons, though there's nothing stopping us from creating them. Perhaps the others could be merged into .

7
  • 10
    No, they should not be merged into president. If anything, a new president-united-states. – Nij Jan 5 at 22:58
  • 1
    @Nij That works. – Pat W. Jan 6 at 13:40
  • 2
    @Nij If you're creating a tag like that, shouldn't it be president-of-the-united-states? That's the formal title, which is why the acronym for the position is POTUS. – nick012000 Jan 9 at 3:21
  • 1
    Meh, we don't even have prime-minister so I'm not overly concerned about having a president-murka created either. @nick012000 – Nij Jan 9 at 3:32
  • 1
    @Nij: the current tag usage guidelines say to tag with "president" and with a country tag, i.e. "united-states". – Fizz Jan 9 at 20:28
  • And guidelines can't be edited to include more relevant information when new tags are created? I don't see what useful point your comment makes. – Nij Jan 9 at 20:30
  • 1
    Note that the tag length limit is 35 (not 25 as I wrote in an earlier wrong comment, now deleted), so @nick012000 's proposal fits. – Federico Poloni Jan 12 at 9:18
3

There are guidelines on this

This is what tags are for: https://law.stackexchange.com/help/tagging

A tag is a word or phrase that describes the topic of the question. Tags are a means of connecting experts with questions they will be able to answer by sorting questions into specific, well-defined categories.

Bear in mind:

As a general rule, you should avoid creating new tags if possible, and new users are not allowed to create new tags. Even if you have sufficient reputation, you should only create new tags when you feel you can make a strong case that your question covers a new topic that nobody else has asked about before on this site.

So, is Trump a topic worthy of a tag? If he is, what about Washington, Putin, Erdoğan, Hitler?

I wouldn't. But you have the privilege to create tags so if in your judgement it should exist, go ahead and create it.

2

Do we need a Trump-tag?

No. The sheer number of questions a public figure elicits should not be a factor for or against creating a tag.

Creating tags for specific individuals would make sense only in instances of renown jurists such as Holmes, Kelsen, or thinkers and theoreticians whose impact on law theory & development is significant. Trump is a highly controversial person, but that does not render him a reference for understanding or developing any topics of law.

You must log in to answer this question.

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