Counterfactual questions are explicitly off-topic per the FAQ. However, there is currently a tag for it (), which some users take to mean that it is on-topic. Can we have the tag deleted or blacklisted, as it serves no purpose?

Other similar tags:

(Should we delete these too?)

  • 1
    BURNINATE THEM! Off with their heads!
    – DVK
    May 2 '13 at 14:09
  • @DVK Your delete vote here will complete the burnination.
    – yannis
    May 2 '13 at 14:40
  • @YannisRizos - done.
    – DVK
    May 2 '13 at 15:13
  • 1
    @DVK Thanks. Always better when the community handles deletions instead of the mods.
    – yannis
    May 2 '13 at 15:14
  • @YannisRizos - amen.
    – DVK
    May 2 '13 at 15:16

You can sort of soft-delete a tag yourself, by removing it from the tags of all questions it is currently on. I believe after a certain period of time, unused tags are deleted.

This would probably be a good candidate. There are only two it is on right now, one is brand new, and I have no real good idea what was meant by the users of that tag. The tag itself has no wiki to tell you.

  • I was just wondering if you wanted to hard-delete it. Once it is removed from all questions, it cannot be hard-deleted until it is used again. May 1 '13 at 16:58
  • @Luke Blacklisting a tag is a dirty business (regex kind of dirty), and it's not something mods can do, only SE. And there isn't really a reason to blacklist tags that in total have 5 questions, blacklisting is reserved for tags that keep coming back. Now, once manually removed (24h after they have no questions), it'll be a bit harder for them to come back (I don't remember the exact rep requirements, but brand new users won't be able to add them again). So, I went ahead and removed them from the open questions.
    – yannis
    May 2 '13 at 13:57
  • This leaves us with one closed question, that has all the tags. This one should be deleted (2 delete votes already), I can't see a way of making it on topic.
    – yannis
    May 2 '13 at 14:00
  • @YannisRizos I know blacklisting is a dev thing, but I just wasn't sure if it would be appropriate here. As far as the last Q, I have already voted to delete. May 2 '13 at 14:02

Given that allohistory gets published in the scholarly press, particularly as edited chapters and as journal articles: you shouldn't. There is a limited selection of legitimate allohistorical questions, and they almost all shoudl relate to scholarly works' suppositions. Jared Diamond's summary work, for example, ought properly be discussed within allohistory given that his work on causation argues strongly from the unsupportability of alternate hypothesis.

Causation is a core element of theory in historiography. Deleting this tag would simply be vandalism.

  • As I mentioned on Carlo's answer, this question is about the tag itself. If you wish to discuss whether or not allohistory should be on-topic, consider taking part in this discussion. However, as site policy now stands, allohistory is explicitly off-topic per the FAQ. May 3 '13 at 0:21
  • @luke You might want to reread the FAQ then, because your construal of history.stackexchange.com/faq#questions is a hostile reading. May 3 '13 at 0:30
  • Alright, I take that back about the FAQ (not literally, because I can't edit my comment :P ). However, there is still currently a general consensus against what-if style questions. Again, feel free to differ in the meta discussion I linked if you feel so inclined. May 3 '13 at 0:32
  • If you have legitimate allohistory or causation questions to ask, go ahead and ask them. At your rep level, you can just re-introduce the tag(s). That said, there were only 2 open questions with the tags, and neither had much to do with either allohistory or causation. So... what vandalism?
    – yannis
    May 3 '13 at 3:08
  • At the moment there are six causation questions on the front page. YMMV, but people continuously ask about causative processes and structures. May 3 '13 at 4:50

You must log in to answer this question.

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