2

It is justified creating the tag just for this question ?

I personally had no idea this guy existed - also, I don't think it should be encouraged to create new tags for every historical figures, especially those who aren't extremely well known.

  • 2
    Update: I've removed the tag while we discuss this. – T.E.D. Dec 4 '17 at 1:56
4

Of the 15 results that show up from searching Ulysses Grant, only five are questions. Of these, only three are actually about Grant - the other two are about the Battle of Tsushima and types of sieges.

I do not think a tag is required in this case, and it definitely should not be just the surname.

5

My understanding is that tags are meant to group questions at a higher level (as meta-data) than can easily found with the site search. In this case a search for "Ulysses S Grant" readily returns a list of questions that relate to him directly. Therefore there seems to be little benefit in adding a tag directly for him (or any other named individual).

If, however, you were to search for "U.S. Generals", the search engine has a harder time in picking questions that are directly related to that term. So a tag for "U.S. Generals" would potentially be useful.

  • Similarly for US Presidents, perhaps. For example, the fdr tag currently has only 2 posts. In fact, browsing the last 5 or 6 pages of the tag list suggests that a major housekeeping operation would be in order! – sempaiscuba Dec 4 '17 at 11:55
4

First off, I've removed the tag from the answer for now.

I endorse (and upvoted, sempaiscuba's answer). I would like to address the tag itself though.

I'd think 14 is plenty for a tag if people really want one. However, I don't think it should be simply "grant". It isn't even obvious that's for a person (suppose someone starts using it for questions about land-grant schools?) So the questions should be 2 here:

  1. Do we really want this tag?
  2. If so, what should its exact name be?

For #1, Again I think 14 answers would be a supportable number.

For #2, I'd think since we have an and a , for both clarity and consistency it should probably be ulysses-s-grant.

  • I agree 14 would be plenty. But there's only three. – Semaphore Dec 4 '17 at 0:13
  • 1
    looks at @Semaphore's answer. Hmmm. Yes, three doesn't seem like nearly enough. – T.E.D. Dec 4 '17 at 1:50
2

Personally, I'm a little surprised that you had never heard of Ulysses S Grant. He was one of the major characters in the US Civil War, and President of the United States (he was president when Custer was defeated at the Battle of Little Bighorn).

On the broader question, I agree that we shouldn't create tags for every historical figure. As I understand it, the purpose of tags is to allow people to find related material. As such, there should probably be as few tags as possible.

I really don't know whether Grant should qualify or not. A quick search shows that Ulysses S. Grant is currently mentioned in 14 questions/answers.

I would certainly hope that anyone creating a new tag would then do a simple search to see whether there are other questions that should also be tagged with it. A tag that is applied to just one question is pointless.

  • It's relevant to note he's mentionned in 14 questions/answers but all of them are already tagged american-civil-war so it seems a second tag is quite redundant. Also I've never heard of him because I'm European an we don't have much interest for the american civil war here. – Bregalad Dec 3 '17 at 21:01
  • @Bregalad I'm in the UK, and the last time I looked, (Brexit notwithstanding) we're in Europe too! ;-) – sempaiscuba Dec 3 '17 at 21:06

You must log in to answer this question.

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