Talk:Tag

Self-ref

To explain why I removed this:

From my perspective, the target content looks like something quite obscure that someone wrote in 2008 as a goal for this WikiProject and is not being actively discussed or worked-on. If someone did want to read about this "proposal", it seems unlikely that they would try to get there by typing "tag" into the Wikipedia search engine (because they would presumably already be familiar with the topic and know where to find the discussion, and also because they would probably not be such a newbie that they would look for it, in article space, with that single vague search term). It just seemed odd to me that the disambiguation page should eternally bear this hatnote linking to one person's suggestion from several years ago. But it's entirely possible my view of the situation is wrong; I'm not familiar with the subject or with the WikiProject. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TAG enzyme

Could mention "3-methyladenine DNA glycosylase I (E. coli TAG) that catalyzes the excision of 3-methyl adducts of adenosine and guanosine from DNA" - Rod57 (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging in markup language

@Quercus solaris and Codename Lisa: I was going to suggest a link to HTML tag as a compromise to your little dispute, but turns out the link is already there. So, may I suggest that adding a link to markup language is already redundant?

Also, Quercus solaris, why do you include your link under "Tag (metadata)" anyway? The type of tag you are addressing clearly the data itself, especially in XML.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the bullet should not have been indented under the preceding bullet. The main issue is the fact that the addition of markup language to plain text is often called tagging, which is indeed (1) a fact, (2) not negatable by anyone's opinion, (3) not affected by whether or not a reverter's own work brings them into contact with it (e.g., my own work doesn't being me into contact with giraffes, but that has nothing to do with giraffes not existing), and (4) could easily be verified at the GIYF level instead of mistakenly reverted because misapprehended as incorrect. The other user's 4 errors that incorrectly wiped out my valid contribution are what annoyed me about the ill-founded reversion. As to their assertion that I violated some policy, who knows, I'm sure there are a thousand pages of bureaucracy somewhere that I haven't read, written by the sorts of bureaucrats who revert valid contributions rather than sanity check their own assumptions before reverting. As to HTML tag, HTML tagging does not include SGML and XML tagging, so a link to HTML tag is not equivalent to "Tagging, the addition of markup language to plain text" (which is the best wording of the bullet, on further reflection). Quercus solaris (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I accept all the four points.

But there is a fifth point: There is a time and place for everything. Regardless of how verifiable and important a fact is, a disambiguation page (as well as other places like a navbox or a lead) is not a place for novel info. A dab page is a place where people are pointed to the correct info.

What you want to add belongs to Wiktionary.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't accept all four points, on the ground that their preamble is faulty. There is tagging in HTML and XML but not in Wikicode, markdown, BBcode, StackExchange code, RTF or regex. Hence, I am questioning the preamble for the four points, rendering them inconsequential to discuss.

Codename Lisa's fifth point, however, is acceptable: There is indeed a time and place for everything. Indeed, my own first contribution to a dab page was (if I am not mistaken) an external link, done on the same grounds as Solaris's four points. I was naturally reverted; it was not the time and place.

But to say this page absolutely has no place for a link to markup language would not be accurate either. I think we need to adjust Solaris's statement. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that point, and I heartily endorse the last sentence ("But to say this page absolutely has no place for a link to markup language would not be accurate either. I think we need to adjust Solaris's statement"). I would welcome any modified version that achieves that goal. If anyone thinks of one, I am game. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second! @FleetCommand: You spend most of your message saying why the foundation of Solaris's argument is unsound and mine is sound; all of a sudden in the last sentence, you steer 180 degrees and say adjustment is needed? My best guess would be that in the absence of preamble, you voided its outcomes and proceeded to assess the contribution on its own merit. This a correct thing to do by a, say, compiler or interpreter, but a wrong thing to do by a, say debugger; the first is trying to decide what to do, but the latter tries to decide why the expected outcome did not arise. Hence, the first is interested in what should happen and the second in what didn't happen. In a dispute we should do the latter because we want to decide why the result expected from the application of WP:DAB did not arise. How do I view this in the light of the fact that you proposed HTML tag as the compromise?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. This is much simpler than that abstract bureaucratic squid-ink cloud, so I'll sum it up before I leave this page and stop wasting time on this BS. As follows: Wikipedia DAB pages disambiguate terms. Sometimes when people say "tagging" they're talking about XML tagging, like in the many WP:RS books in the following link: (https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q="XML+tagging"&num=100). That's why this page should have a bullet that somehow leads to that sense of the word, regardless of the exact wording. (End of summary.) Just had to explain that so that any third parties who might ever read this thread can see clearly what the core issue really was, how simply it could have been resolved, and what kind of mindfoggery or squid ink stood in the way of that constructive collaboration. However, given that not many searchers will ever need that DAB bullet to help them figure out an ambiguous mention, it's not worth the time to salve Lisa's hangups enough to get the bullet added here. Best to save time and effort for cases that really need it. Quercus solaris (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Lisa: That's amazingly correct. Let me start from the end. From WP:DABRELATED:
Include articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article. For example, a use of the term "set" is discussed in the article on Volleyball, so Set (disambiguation) legitimately includes "Set, the second contact in [[volleyball]]".
That's far less stringent than WP:DABACRONYM, MOS:DABPIPE and MOS:DABREDIR. In the light of this, HTML tag is just partial title match. (See WP:PTM on that.)

So, my proposal is:

Add a tagging entry with markup language in it, because this article explains tagging, regardless of the fact that it is not employed anywhere.
Remove HTML tag as partial title match; should you encounter resistance, fall back to making it a sub-entry of the aforementioned.

Do you agree so far? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]