There have been several tag Wiki and Wiki excerpt edits in the last half-day that appear to be copy/pasted from Wikipedia without regard to the astronomical context of the terms.

I've voted to reject several and I advise others to do so as well to put a speedy if at least temporary hold on this activity until it's reviewed/discussed here.

The reason that the Wiki and excerpt exist are to provide usage guidelines for users deciding how to tag their question. They start typing a tag's name and the excerpt appears. What it's supposed to do is to help them decide if this tag belongs on their question in this site, not to give a general or humorous definition for general information or entertainment.

Usage guidance, also known as a tag wiki excerpt, is a short blurb that describes when and why a tag should be used on this site specifically.

These rejections were on things like

  • doppler-effect
  • sky-survey
  • interferometry
  • comets
  • angular-resolution
  • particles

Enthusiasm is wonderful, but let's make sure each change improves the function of what's being changed!

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just to disclose: It was me who made those edits. I admit that parts are coming from wikipedia, but mostly only the "long" definition part of the tag page. For the "usage guide" I tried my best to improve the ease of tagging correctly, and I did think about whether or not the formulation is suitable for astronomy. $\endgroup$ – B--rian Feb 16 at 11:24
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @B--rian I really like your use of meta questions for tagging conundrums, maybe for some of these they can be proposed here first. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 16 at 11:26
  • $\begingroup$ I am happy to discuss the recent tag suggestions, but I just thought that having at least some somewhat reasonable hint for a tag is better than not having any. $\endgroup$ – B--rian Feb 16 at 11:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @B--rian if the tag has been around for a year or three without it, and you haven't discovered it appearing on the wrong questions, then it is not in dire need of a new usage guideline. Better to get some new ones right than to add a whole bunch that are sub-optimal I think.Your Wiki Excerpt for Comet was almost not even serious. In fact there is a real issue between comets and asteroids: Do astronomers generally agree that the distinction between comets and asteroids is not so clear? WIkipedia is not always trustworthy and accurate. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 16 at 11:31
  • $\begingroup$ Point taken about comets. $\endgroup$ – B--rian Feb 16 at 11:32
  • $\begingroup$ @B--rian I, too, appreciate the enthusiasm, but please do not copy anything from Wikipedia into tag excerpts or wikis in whole or in part. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Feb 16 at 14:20
  • $\begingroup$ For that matter, the excerpts should never be copied from elsewhere, or even quoted really since they are too brief to properly cite quotes. And the wiki is not really for general information about the topic, but for more information about the tag and related tags, so it's not really helpful to borrow much information from elsewhere there either. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Feb 16 at 14:21
  • $\begingroup$ @B--rian I've just asked high-energy-astrophysics tag usage guideline, could this be improved? I still think that you are missing the whole point of the function that Wiki excerpts should serve and their target audience. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 17 at 21:36
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh Thanks for asking on Meta. About the user guidance, I am trying to be both precise and concise about the usage of the tag, defining the tag. In the wiki excerpts, I tried to follow what I have seen on many stackoverflow- tag definitions. $\endgroup$ – B--rian Feb 17 at 21:51
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh Speaking about what the purpose of the Wiki-part of a tag, let's have a look at the tag html on stackoverflow, stackoverflow.com/tags/html/info - there (and for many, many other tags) I find a lengthy discussion about what HTML is, etc. but nothing about where to use the tag or where not to use the tag. If I understand you correctly, that is what you are missing in my long-text parts for each tag, correct? $\endgroup$ – B--rian Feb 17 at 21:54
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh I quoted the html tag above since this is an example for an entry, I did not find too useful - do we agree on that matter? Differently put - could you please tell me a tag or two where you find both user guidance and wiki-part well written? $\endgroup$ – B--rian Feb 17 at 21:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @B--rian I never look at the Wikis and i think most people don't, but question-askers and editors constantly see the excerpts when choosing or changing tags, so let's discuss those. It doesn't matter if they are "well written", what matters if they function well; if they suit their purpose. For example traffic signs along a highway must be short and unambiguous and allow users to quickly decide on a course of action. It matters much less if they are well written apart from that. ROAD NARROWS, SLOW AHEAD, DEAR XING... $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 18 at 0:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @B--rian Here is an example (on Space Exploration) where the tag wiki is well-written: space.stackexchange.com/tags/spacex/info $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Feb 18 at 16:05
  • $\begingroup$ @B--rian I have rejected as "causes harm" several of your very recent Wiki excerpt proposals. The are simply unhelpful and confusing. As mentioned above, the excerpts are the things that askers and editors see when deciding which tags to add or remove from questions. They must be very clear and concise and actionable. Many of yours are vague, insensitive to the context of Astronomy or this site, and ambiguous. "the loudness of an object" and "sudden bright lights of different kind" for example. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 18 at 23:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @B--rian since the community directly benefits/suffers from good/bad excerpts, why not open them up to discussion. From the looks of things you enjoy the full Wikis, and the excerpts seem like rushed afterthoughts, so no need to do them right away or at the same time as the full wikis. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 19 at 9:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .