5

The other day as I was doing my drive-by copyediting and tagging run I added the tag to the question about snorkelling in Hawaii without apparently thinking it through properly because I've only spotted it now.

But is it a good thing or a bad thing? Technically snorkelling isn't really diving, but would a snorkelling tag just be adding something with not enough use and not enough differentiation?

Should we:

  1. Just always tag snorkelling questions as "diving" for now?
  2. Add a "snorkelling" tag as well as a diving tag?
  3. Make "snorkelling" but add it as a synonym to "diving"?
  4. Edit the name of the tag to something more inclusive like "diving-and-snorkelling"?

If we do go with option 3. I think we should edit the tag wiki/excerpt to specifically mention that it includes snorkelling.

  • 1
    Number 3, definitely. I think they have enough in common to justify lumping them together. And no. 4 is frankly an abomination. – mindcorrosive Oct 28 '11 at 6:14
  • Yeah I find it harder to avoid abomination tags on this SE than on any of the others I participate in. Perhaps due to being less sciency? – hippietrail Oct 28 '11 at 7:54
  • That's strange, I just noticed a new snorkelling question and it seems to be the only one now with the snorkelling tag. How can this be? – hippietrail Nov 3 '11 at 7:33
1

Posted separately as an answer since it's closely related but not the same.

We now have a "snorkeling" tag with one "l". I hadn't realized there are two spellings:

I actually thought the British spelled tag already existed but it doesn't yet. In any case it's always a good idea to have these variants as synonyms. I believe the rule is the variant used in the Wikipedia article becomes the main synonym? As an Aussie of course I'm in favour of the "two l" spelling.

0

should be a synonym of , because I believe 'diving' covers all range of such water(sport) activities.

Vote up if you agree.

You must log in to answer this question.

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