4

Is there a general rule we can and should use to determine whether -law tags should be synonyms (and deprecated), or if and when they should be preserved and used as separate from their root tags? Answer and vote below!

Alternatively: If you believe this should be handled on a case-by-case basis, then you can either advocate within the specific thread or simply create coherent tag wikis for the pairs you think deserve to be separate and we'll take that as evidence that they should not be part of any general solution (and note them accordingly here).


Feel free to amend this list as you find examples.

Resolved:

  1. is now a synonym for
  2. is now a synonym for
  3. Merge tags [international] and [international-law]? is now a synonym for
  4. Should "traffic" and "traffic-laws" be synonymized? is now a synonym for

Open:

  1. The [contract] and [contract-law] tags ( vs )
  2. vs
  3. This answer also addresses vs. , and suggests that in these first two cases differences are worth preserving ... except that presently nobody is using
  • NB: If you think something in the Resolved ledger should be changed, feel free to open a new meta topic, or answer the existing one to bump it. – feetwet Aug 17 '15 at 8:47
  • Wait, what?! Please be consistent. Why are you advocating for removing "law" suffix from tags, yet propose to insert "Jurisdiction of" into excerpts?! meta.law.stackexchange.com/questions/256/… – cnst Sep 16 '15 at 5:29
  • @cnst - Big difference between the tag name itself vs the tag's wiki excerpt. The order of concision goes tag-name, tag-excerpt, tag-wiki. In the first two we want to be as concise as possible without leaving room for ambiguity. – feetwet Sep 16 '15 at 12:07
  • I completely agree! And thus may I ask again -- what ambiguity is there that a "canada" tag is not for a "Jurisdiction of"? Non sequitur! – cnst Sep 16 '15 at 20:23
  • @cnst - Let's take the jurisdiction question discussion back over there. And note that, as of this moment, your proposal there is the only one with a positive vote, and that vote was by me! There just doesn't seem to be enough attention to these issues to establish a consistent convention or policy (yet).... :( – feetwet Sep 16 '15 at 20:40
1

At least the first three examples in the question show that it is possible and potentially useful to make a distinction between the two tags.

However, as a practical matter, it doesn't seem that users in general pay close enough attention to tags for such distinctions to be reliably considered.

Therefore, vote or comment here if you think we should in general deprecate -law tags and merge them with their root tag.

  • 1
    I definitely don't think we should always deprecate -law; for the corporate case, if there is one tag it should be -law. – cpast Aug 16 '15 at 14:37
  • @cpast: You made a good general argument when you said, "[W]e should use the phrase that someone would actually use instead of trying a this-site-specific contraction." I think that's a good alternative answer to this question, as was that full answer if you believe it applies generally to this problem. Would you care to post one or more of those as answers we can vote for? (Alternatively, I'm amending the question for those who think it should be handled on a case-by-case basis.) – feetwet Aug 16 '15 at 14:53
  • 2
    IMHO, I think that a case-by-case basis would be more advantageous as sometimes the distinction is substantive and other times grouping is appropriate. For example Employment and Employment-law may very well be different. For example, I can see a question arising out of an employment injury (comp claims) or drug tests, which is outside the typically understood purview of employment-law, which seems to denote topics like wrongful termination, at will employment states, CBA's, etc. – gracey209 Aug 17 '15 at 4:26

You must log in to answer this question.

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