They have different descriptions so I'm guessing they're not synonyms for each other. The descriptions don't seem to clearly make a difference between the two, however. Is one supposed to be used for a specific instance of war, and the other for questions about general warfare/tactics/strategy?

1 Answer 1


The way I understood it, is for questions on specific wars (perhaps ones that aren't covered by existing tags like ww1?), e.g. What would've been the outcome of the Yom Kippur War had the UN not intervened? In contrast, would be for the history of waging wars in general, e.g. questions like When was the first airborne combat drop?

As is typical with such tags, in practice they get mixed around a lot. I think that in this case though there's a non-trivial difference and on the whole I think people (or editors) are tagging them differently.

  • Should OP (or editor) just replace the war tag with a war-specific tag then? I don't see the utility in a tag for "leftover wars"
    – two sheds
    Aug 10, 2015 at 21:13
  • @twosheds Well, I can see it being helpful for someone interested in, say, medieval wars. Of course in that case we'd want the war tag on questions covered by specific names too. Without a hierachial tag system we're not going to get a perfect solution I suppose.
    – Semaphore
    Aug 10, 2015 at 21:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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