Skip to main content
Travel

Return to Answer

replaced http://travel.stackexchange.com/ with https://travel.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

Proposals:

Keep . It is specific and frequent enough.

Either synonymise or delete . Synonymise if there is no other relevant visa waiver programme. Delete if at least one other country of similar relevancy here has one. Maybe also blacklist.

If other countries do have one, add a as necessary. However, for rare programmes of uncommon countries stick to + .

Reasoning

Tags are supposed to ease searching and categorise questions. At the same time, tags are not supposed to be inherently hierarchical, but sub-tags are allowed for sufficiently relevant sub-topics.

The fulfils the condition of being a sufficiently relevant sub-topic to warrant its own tag in my humble opinion. It applies to a very large country that counts lots of international tourists, a sufficient number of nationals are eligible for it and both sides are very likely to frequent Travel.SE. Indeed, it has sparked so many questions (174 excluding Closed as of right now) and sufficient answers to have a tag badgetag badge. Its name is good since it’s descriptive and non-ambiguous.

is not a good name for a tag as it is potentially ambiguous. As of its current tag wiki, it is meant to mean the same thing as . However, the abbreviation’s full name is short enough to be allowed as a tag so that should be used to prevent mistaggings, misconceptions and misunderstandings.

I am unaware of any other sufficiently important countries that have a similar programme as the US do with their Visa Waiver Program. Thus, in its current state it seems like synonymising is the course of action to be taken. It is, however, very possible that I am just not knowledgeable enough and that other countries do have a similar yet distinct programme under the same name. If that is the case, then deleting and blacklisting the tag is the better solution, since keeping it could again allow mistaggings.

‘Sufficiently important’ is purposefully arbitrary. The UK is a rather small country but they are well-known on a global level and attract a high number of tourists each year. If the UK adopts such a programme, giving it a corresponding tag will be the correct choice of action in the long run. Papua New Guinea is twice the size but has a significantly smaller population and significantly less tourism. If they adopt such a programme we likely won’t realise for quite some time and a separate tag is not necessary. The extensive grey area in-between is where judgement will have to be used.

Finally, why would we want other tags for sufficiently important countries? It’s basically the same argument as above; if something sparks enough questions (and the US Visa Waiver Program certainly does) then it warrants a tag.

Proposals:

Keep . It is specific and frequent enough.

Either synonymise or delete . Synonymise if there is no other relevant visa waiver programme. Delete if at least one other country of similar relevancy here has one. Maybe also blacklist.

If other countries do have one, add a as necessary. However, for rare programmes of uncommon countries stick to + .

Reasoning

Tags are supposed to ease searching and categorise questions. At the same time, tags are not supposed to be inherently hierarchical, but sub-tags are allowed for sufficiently relevant sub-topics.

The fulfils the condition of being a sufficiently relevant sub-topic to warrant its own tag in my humble opinion. It applies to a very large country that counts lots of international tourists, a sufficient number of nationals are eligible for it and both sides are very likely to frequent Travel.SE. Indeed, it has sparked so many questions (174 excluding Closed as of right now) and sufficient answers to have a tag badge. Its name is good since it’s descriptive and non-ambiguous.

is not a good name for a tag as it is potentially ambiguous. As of its current tag wiki, it is meant to mean the same thing as . However, the abbreviation’s full name is short enough to be allowed as a tag so that should be used to prevent mistaggings, misconceptions and misunderstandings.

I am unaware of any other sufficiently important countries that have a similar programme as the US do with their Visa Waiver Program. Thus, in its current state it seems like synonymising is the course of action to be taken. It is, however, very possible that I am just not knowledgeable enough and that other countries do have a similar yet distinct programme under the same name. If that is the case, then deleting and blacklisting the tag is the better solution, since keeping it could again allow mistaggings.

‘Sufficiently important’ is purposefully arbitrary. The UK is a rather small country but they are well-known on a global level and attract a high number of tourists each year. If the UK adopts such a programme, giving it a corresponding tag will be the correct choice of action in the long run. Papua New Guinea is twice the size but has a significantly smaller population and significantly less tourism. If they adopt such a programme we likely won’t realise for quite some time and a separate tag is not necessary. The extensive grey area in-between is where judgement will have to be used.

Finally, why would we want other tags for sufficiently important countries? It’s basically the same argument as above; if something sparks enough questions (and the US Visa Waiver Program certainly does) then it warrants a tag.

Proposals:

Keep . It is specific and frequent enough.

Either synonymise or delete . Synonymise if there is no other relevant visa waiver programme. Delete if at least one other country of similar relevancy here has one. Maybe also blacklist.

If other countries do have one, add a as necessary. However, for rare programmes of uncommon countries stick to + .

Reasoning

Tags are supposed to ease searching and categorise questions. At the same time, tags are not supposed to be inherently hierarchical, but sub-tags are allowed for sufficiently relevant sub-topics.

The fulfils the condition of being a sufficiently relevant sub-topic to warrant its own tag in my humble opinion. It applies to a very large country that counts lots of international tourists, a sufficient number of nationals are eligible for it and both sides are very likely to frequent Travel.SE. Indeed, it has sparked so many questions (174 excluding Closed as of right now) and sufficient answers to have a tag badge. Its name is good since it’s descriptive and non-ambiguous.

is not a good name for a tag as it is potentially ambiguous. As of its current tag wiki, it is meant to mean the same thing as . However, the abbreviation’s full name is short enough to be allowed as a tag so that should be used to prevent mistaggings, misconceptions and misunderstandings.

I am unaware of any other sufficiently important countries that have a similar programme as the US do with their Visa Waiver Program. Thus, in its current state it seems like synonymising is the course of action to be taken. It is, however, very possible that I am just not knowledgeable enough and that other countries do have a similar yet distinct programme under the same name. If that is the case, then deleting and blacklisting the tag is the better solution, since keeping it could again allow mistaggings.

‘Sufficiently important’ is purposefully arbitrary. The UK is a rather small country but they are well-known on a global level and attract a high number of tourists each year. If the UK adopts such a programme, giving it a corresponding tag will be the correct choice of action in the long run. Papua New Guinea is twice the size but has a significantly smaller population and significantly less tourism. If they adopt such a programme we likely won’t realise for quite some time and a separate tag is not necessary. The extensive grey area in-between is where judgement will have to be used.

Finally, why would we want other tags for sufficiently important countries? It’s basically the same argument as above; if something sparks enough questions (and the US Visa Waiver Program certainly does) then it warrants a tag.

added 17 characters in body
Source Link
pnuts
pnuts
  • 28.5k
  • 15
  • 45

Proposals:

Keep . It is specific and frequent enough.

Either synonymise or delete . Synonymise if there is no other relevant visa waiver programme. Delete if at least one other country of similar relevancy here has one. Maybe also blacklist.

If other countries do have one, add a as necessary. However, for rare programmes of uncommon countries stick to + .

Reasoning

Tags are supposed to ease searching and categorise questions. At the same time, tags are not supposed to be inherently hierarchical, but sub-tags are allowed for sufficiently relevant sub-topics.

The fulfils the condition of being a sufficiently relevant sub-topic to warrant its own tag in my humble opinion. It applies to a very large country that counts lots of international tourists, a sufficient number of nationals are eligible for it and both sides are very likely to frequent Travel.SE. Indeed, it has sparked so many questions (236174 excluding Closed as of right now) and sufficient answers to have a tag badge. Its name is good since it’s descriptive and non-ambiguous.

is not a good name for a tag as it is potentially ambiguous. As of its current tag wiki, it is meant to mean the same thing as . However, the abbreviation’s full name is short enough to be allowed as a tag so that should be used to prevent mistaggings, misconceptions and misunderstandings.

I am unaware of any other sufficiently important countries that have a similar programme as the US do with their Visa Waiver Program. Thus, in its current state it seems like synonymising is the course of action to be taken. It is, however, very possible that I am just not knowledgeable enough and that other countries do have a similar yet distinct programme under the same name. If that is the case, then deleting and blacklisting the tag is the better solution, since keeping it could again allow mistaggings.

‘Sufficiently important’ is purposefully arbitrary. The UK is a rather small country but they are well-known on a global level and attract a high number of tourists each year. If the UK adopts such a programme, giving it a corresponding tag will be the correct choice of action in the long run. Papua New Guinea is twice the size but has a significantly smaller population and significantly less tourism. If they adopt such a programme we likely won’t realise for quite some time and a separate tag is not necessary. The extensive grey area in-between is where judgement will have to be used.

Finally, why would we want other tags for sufficiently important countries? It’s basically the same argument as above; if something sparks enough questions (and the US Visa Waiver Program certainly does) then it warrants a tag.

Proposals:

Keep . It is specific and frequent enough.

Either synonymise or delete . Synonymise if there is no other relevant visa waiver programme. Delete if at least one other country of similar relevancy here has one. Maybe also blacklist.

If other countries do have one, add a as necessary. However, for rare programmes of uncommon countries stick to + .

Reasoning

Tags are supposed to ease searching and categorise questions. At the same time, tags are not supposed to be inherently hierarchical, but sub-tags are allowed for sufficiently relevant sub-topics.

The fulfils the condition of being a sufficiently relevant sub-topic to warrant its own tag in my humble opinion. It applies to a very large country that counts lots of international tourists, a sufficient number of nationals are eligible for it and both sides are very likely to frequent Travel.SE. Indeed, it has sparked so many questions (236 as of right now) and sufficient answers to have a tag badge. Its name is good since it’s descriptive and non-ambiguous.

is not a good name for a tag as it is potentially ambiguous. As of its current tag wiki, it is meant to mean the same thing as . However, the abbreviation’s full name is short enough to be allowed as a tag so that should be used to prevent mistaggings, misconceptions and misunderstandings.

I am unaware of any other sufficiently important countries that have a similar programme as the US do with their Visa Waiver Program. Thus, in its current state it seems like synonymising is the course of action to be taken. It is, however, very possible that I am just not knowledgeable enough and that other countries do have a similar yet distinct programme under the same name. If that is the case, then deleting and blacklisting the tag is the better solution, since keeping it could again allow mistaggings.

‘Sufficiently important’ is purposefully arbitrary. The UK is a rather small country but they are well-known on a global level and attract a high number of tourists each year. If the UK adopts such a programme, giving it a corresponding tag will be the correct choice of action in the long run. Papua New Guinea is twice the size but has a significantly smaller population and significantly less tourism. If they adopt such a programme we likely won’t realise for quite some time and a separate tag is not necessary. The extensive grey area in-between is where judgement will have to be used.

Finally, why would we want other tags for sufficiently important countries? It’s basically the same argument as above; if something sparks enough questions (and the US Visa Waiver Program certainly does) then it warrants a tag.

Proposals:

Keep . It is specific and frequent enough.

Either synonymise or delete . Synonymise if there is no other relevant visa waiver programme. Delete if at least one other country of similar relevancy here has one. Maybe also blacklist.

If other countries do have one, add a as necessary. However, for rare programmes of uncommon countries stick to + .

Reasoning

Tags are supposed to ease searching and categorise questions. At the same time, tags are not supposed to be inherently hierarchical, but sub-tags are allowed for sufficiently relevant sub-topics.

The fulfils the condition of being a sufficiently relevant sub-topic to warrant its own tag in my humble opinion. It applies to a very large country that counts lots of international tourists, a sufficient number of nationals are eligible for it and both sides are very likely to frequent Travel.SE. Indeed, it has sparked so many questions (174 excluding Closed as of right now) and sufficient answers to have a tag badge. Its name is good since it’s descriptive and non-ambiguous.

is not a good name for a tag as it is potentially ambiguous. As of its current tag wiki, it is meant to mean the same thing as . However, the abbreviation’s full name is short enough to be allowed as a tag so that should be used to prevent mistaggings, misconceptions and misunderstandings.

I am unaware of any other sufficiently important countries that have a similar programme as the US do with their Visa Waiver Program. Thus, in its current state it seems like synonymising is the course of action to be taken. It is, however, very possible that I am just not knowledgeable enough and that other countries do have a similar yet distinct programme under the same name. If that is the case, then deleting and blacklisting the tag is the better solution, since keeping it could again allow mistaggings.

‘Sufficiently important’ is purposefully arbitrary. The UK is a rather small country but they are well-known on a global level and attract a high number of tourists each year. If the UK adopts such a programme, giving it a corresponding tag will be the correct choice of action in the long run. Papua New Guinea is twice the size but has a significantly smaller population and significantly less tourism. If they adopt such a programme we likely won’t realise for quite some time and a separate tag is not necessary. The extensive grey area in-between is where judgement will have to be used.

Finally, why would we want other tags for sufficiently important countries? It’s basically the same argument as above; if something sparks enough questions (and the US Visa Waiver Program certainly does) then it warrants a tag.

deleted 431 characters in body
Source Link
Jan
Jan
  • 16.1k
  • 1
  • 12
  • 21

Proposals:

Keep . It is specific and frequent enough.

Either synonymise or delete . Synonymise if there is no other relevant visa waiver programme. Delete if at least one other country of similar relevancy here has one. Maybe also blacklist.

If other countries do have one, add a as necessary. However, for rare programmes of uncommon countries stick to + .

Reasoning

Tags are supposed to ease searching and categorise questions. At the same time, tags are not supposed to be inherently hierarchical, but sub-tags are allowed for sufficiently relevant sub-topics.

The fulfils the condition of being a sufficiently relevant sub-topic to warrant its own tag in my humble opinion. It applies to a very large country that counts lots of international tourists, a sufficient number of nationals are eligible for it and both sides are very likely to frequent Travel.SE. Indeed, it has sparked so many questions (236 as of right now) and sufficient answers to have a tag badge. Its name is good since it’s descriptive and non-ambiguous.

is not a good name for a tag as it is potentially ambiguous. As of its current tag wiki, it is meant to mean the same thing as . However, the abbreviation’s full name is short enough to be allowed as a tag so that should be used to prevent mistaggings, misconceptions and misunderstandings.

I am unaware of any other sufficiently important countries that have a similar programme as the US do with their Visa Waiver Program. Thus, in its current state it seems like synonymising is the course of action to be taken. It is, however, very possible that I am just not knowledgeable enough and that other countries do have a similar yet distinct programme under the same name. If that is the case, then deleting and blacklisting the tag is the better solution, since keeping it could again allow mistaggings.

‘Sufficiently important’ is purposefully arbitrary. The UK is a rather small country but they are well-known on a global level and attract a high number of tourists each year. If the UK adopts such a programme, giving it a corresponding tag will be the correct choice of action in the long run. Papua New Guinea is twice the size but has a significantly smaller population and significantly less tourism. If they adopt such a programme we likely won’t realise for quite some time and a separate tag is not necessary. The extensive grey area in-between is where judgement will have to be used.

Finally, why would we want other tags for sufficiently important countries? Well, unfortunately one of Stack Exchange’s shortcomings is that only one tag at a time can be entered intoIt’s basically the search barsame argument as above; if something sparks enough questions (any other tags will be interpreted as keywords). Now consider yourself searching for information onand the US Visa Waiver Program with or . Both will have a very high number of questions that mostly do not have anything to do with your desired combination — and if they do, they will probably not address your issue since you would need a much more descriptive search. Thus, keeping the tag(scertainly does) as a whole isthen it warrants a good ideatag.

Proposals:

Keep . It is specific and frequent enough.

Either synonymise or delete . Synonymise if there is no other relevant visa waiver programme. Delete if at least one other country of similar relevancy here has one. Maybe also blacklist.

If other countries do have one, add a as necessary. However, for rare programmes of uncommon countries stick to + .

Reasoning

Tags are supposed to ease searching and categorise questions. At the same time, tags are not supposed to be inherently hierarchical, but sub-tags are allowed for sufficiently relevant sub-topics.

The fulfils the condition of being a sufficiently relevant sub-topic to warrant its own tag in my humble opinion. It applies to a very large country that counts lots of international tourists, a sufficient number of nationals are eligible for it and both sides are very likely to frequent Travel.SE. Indeed, it has sparked so many questions (236 as of right now) and sufficient answers to have a tag badge. Its name is good since it’s descriptive and non-ambiguous.

is not a good name for a tag as it is potentially ambiguous. As of its current tag wiki, it is meant to mean the same thing as . However, the abbreviation’s full name is short enough to be allowed as a tag so that should be used to prevent mistaggings, misconceptions and misunderstandings.

I am unaware of any other sufficiently important countries that have a similar programme as the US do with their Visa Waiver Program. Thus, in its current state it seems like synonymising is the course of action to be taken. It is, however, very possible that I am just not knowledgeable enough and that other countries do have a similar yet distinct programme under the same name. If that is the case, then deleting and blacklisting the tag is the better solution, since keeping it could again allow mistaggings.

‘Sufficiently important’ is purposefully arbitrary. The UK is a rather small country but they are well-known on a global level and attract a high number of tourists each year. If the UK adopts such a programme, giving it a corresponding tag will be the correct choice of action in the long run. Papua New Guinea is twice the size but has a significantly smaller population and significantly less tourism. If they adopt such a programme we likely won’t realise for quite some time and a separate tag is not necessary. The extensive grey area in-between is where judgement will have to be used.

Finally, why would we want other tags for sufficiently important countries? Well, unfortunately one of Stack Exchange’s shortcomings is that only one tag at a time can be entered into the search bar (any other tags will be interpreted as keywords). Now consider yourself searching for information on the US Visa Waiver Program with or . Both will have a very high number of questions that mostly do not have anything to do with your desired combination — and if they do, they will probably not address your issue since you would need a much more descriptive search. Thus, keeping the tag(s) as a whole is a good idea.

Proposals:

Keep . It is specific and frequent enough.

Either synonymise or delete . Synonymise if there is no other relevant visa waiver programme. Delete if at least one other country of similar relevancy here has one. Maybe also blacklist.

If other countries do have one, add a as necessary. However, for rare programmes of uncommon countries stick to + .

Reasoning

Tags are supposed to ease searching and categorise questions. At the same time, tags are not supposed to be inherently hierarchical, but sub-tags are allowed for sufficiently relevant sub-topics.

The fulfils the condition of being a sufficiently relevant sub-topic to warrant its own tag in my humble opinion. It applies to a very large country that counts lots of international tourists, a sufficient number of nationals are eligible for it and both sides are very likely to frequent Travel.SE. Indeed, it has sparked so many questions (236 as of right now) and sufficient answers to have a tag badge. Its name is good since it’s descriptive and non-ambiguous.

is not a good name for a tag as it is potentially ambiguous. As of its current tag wiki, it is meant to mean the same thing as . However, the abbreviation’s full name is short enough to be allowed as a tag so that should be used to prevent mistaggings, misconceptions and misunderstandings.

I am unaware of any other sufficiently important countries that have a similar programme as the US do with their Visa Waiver Program. Thus, in its current state it seems like synonymising is the course of action to be taken. It is, however, very possible that I am just not knowledgeable enough and that other countries do have a similar yet distinct programme under the same name. If that is the case, then deleting and blacklisting the tag is the better solution, since keeping it could again allow mistaggings.

‘Sufficiently important’ is purposefully arbitrary. The UK is a rather small country but they are well-known on a global level and attract a high number of tourists each year. If the UK adopts such a programme, giving it a corresponding tag will be the correct choice of action in the long run. Papua New Guinea is twice the size but has a significantly smaller population and significantly less tourism. If they adopt such a programme we likely won’t realise for quite some time and a separate tag is not necessary. The extensive grey area in-between is where judgement will have to be used.

Finally, why would we want other tags for sufficiently important countries? It’s basically the same argument as above; if something sparks enough questions (and the US Visa Waiver Program certainly does) then it warrants a tag.

Source Link
Jan
Jan
  • 16.1k
  • 1
  • 12
  • 21