4

I tried to tag a question about Rwanda with the vaccination tag, but it was converted into the health tag. The tag description discusses vaccines with respect to protecting one's health, but I am concerned only about the administrative implications of the vaccine.

I don't actually care about protecting myself from yellow fever. I don't want to get the vaccine if I don't have to. The health tag therefore seems inappropriate to my question, unless it is modified to include administrative questions about vaccines.

The current relevant text is

Various places in the world produce diseases indigenous to the region for which locals may have already developed immunity, which people from outside the region may not have, so certain vaccinations may be necessary.

But in fact, as I understand it, the only vaccine that can be required administratively is yellow fever, so if "certain vaccinations" are "necessary," that need is medical, not administrative. This contributes to my sense that the health tag is not appropriate for administrative questions about vaccination.

Should the health tag description be modified? Should there be a different tag for such questions?

  • 1
    But 'necessary' doesn't specify whether the necessity is medical or administrative. Also as you specify that yellow fever is the only vaccination which has this, wouldn't a new tag be too specific? – drat Mar 4 '16 at 0:56
  • @drat maybe. My concern is that as I read about the health tag, I got the distinct impression that it doesn't apply to my question. If we think that it should apply to my question, therefore, I'd suggest a rewrite. – phoog Mar 4 '16 at 0:58
  • yes, I think it may make sense to rewrite it to underline that the necessity might be either medical or administrative. I think that'd make more sense than a new tag. – drat Mar 4 '16 at 1:15
2

as well as does not seem necessary to me at this time. Nor a separation of into 'administrative' and say 'physical/mental' aspects.

So what is left basically would be aligning the wiki with how the tag is being used. That just seems a routine edit or suggestion to enhance what is there at present:

Questions in this tag deal with methods and problems of staying healthy in various regions in the world. Various places in the world produce diseases indigenous to the region for which locals may have already developed immunity, which people from outside the region may not have, so certain vaccinations may be necessary.

An edit would be from someone trusted to get to it right on their own, a suggestion would be reviewed. Either way there seems little point in a lot of meta discussion about it. Just let's proceed with the normal tag edit process - either leave as is, change or suggest change within the tag system, rather than in meta. Revert to meta if an edit is rejected.

Extreme caution may be appropriate in some circumstances (eg there was a lot of brouhaha here - still unresolved) but, except for a few tags such as perhaps , there should not be as much contention on TSE.

You must log in to answer this question.

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