11

I just noticed that there are two tags for the same person, and .

Here are the links: caesar and julius-caesar.

has no uage guidance, but has:

Questions relating to the Roman politician and general Gaius Julius Caesar

This also makes clear that it's about the person, not the title.

I suggest to have only one tag for the person, .

Can we merge and ?

We could also decide to turn into a tag for the title, not the person. Then the usage guidance would have to be changed. That's indeed possible, see the FAQ:

Merging, by itself, does not create a synonym, meaning that the tag that was merged can be recreated and used later.

Should be used only when it's about the title?

I found 4 question for which that is appropriate:

With only 14 questions tagged you may decide that retagging by hand and changing the usage guidance of only, would suffice. This is mainly about clearing up the confusion.

10

I take a different view here. I have just searched the tag, and found questions relating both to Julius Caesar and to the title/other emperors. Personally, I would prefer to be person-specific, and to be more general, covering the next c.400 years.

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

  • 2
    Just to pump this argument a bit, its pretty clear than no less that 4 posters wanted a caesar tag so badly, that they went against the clear advice of the tag wiki and used it that way. We don't know how many more would have used it that way, if the wiki actually supported that usage. – T.E.D. Jun 30 at 19:24
  • 1
    @T.E.D True. As see it, Caesar was simply a family name, and is used as such in "Julius Caesar". It became a title by extension/identification only later. In the present context, the tag caesar would make no sense when saying "Christians refused to make sacrifices to Caesar.", since Julius Caesar was dead before the rise of Christianity. I find the current tags illogical. – TheHonRose Jul 1 at 0:09
  • Has this been resolved, or do we still have caesar and julius-caesar tags? – TheHonRose Jul 28 at 13:28
  • 1
    @TheHonRose I resolved it today by redefining the caesar tag as suggested in your answer. – called2voyage Aug 30 at 19:57
  • @called2voyage Thank you, seems logical to me! – TheHonRose Aug 30 at 22:42
9

So I basically see two questions here:

  1. Is it useful to have a separate tag for rulers with "Ceasar" in their name/title?

I could see arguments on both sides of this. People used it that way 4 times (despite the tag wiki). Perhaps it might even be worthwhile to have something that somehow includes later titles derived from "Ceasar" (eg: Tsar, Keiser). However, I think I'm currently leaning toward a "no" on this one. Perhaps if we need something like "Emperor", that can be discussed separately.

  1. What should we do about the two existing tags that are clearly intended to apply to the same concept?

On this one, I'd be inclined to get rid of in favor of (but with the former's wiki info), as the latter makes it clearer what it applies to, and already includes the text of the former for easy searching.

Different answers encouraged, if anyone feels differently.

  • My question was originally only about Julius, when it occurred to me that "caesar" could also mean the title. 4 questions are not that much. I guess "roman-empire" already covers that, too (in contrast to "roman-kingdom" and "roman-republic", tags that already exist). 3 of the 4 questions also have the tag "roman-empire", but not this one - adding that tag might make sense there. – Indiana Jenna Jun 28 at 14:22
  • The 4 Qs needed re-tagging (to follow wiki wiki), without checking, we seem to not have a [caesar] (title) tag needed. But as that might change, it's best to keep that one clean for future use. Re-iterating, imo we do not need a caesar tag now. – LаngLаngС Jun 28 at 20:32

You must log in to answer this question.

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