1
$\begingroup$

Some of these I agree with, some I disagree with, but they came up in chat recently, so I am putting them here:

  1. Change to , in line with matheducators

  2. Merge and into

  3. Change to

  4. (Larger change) Go on a giant purge of meta tags throughout the site, which would eliminate many of the above named tags above entirely.

$\endgroup$

closed as too broad by thesecretmaster♦, Ben I.♦, Gypsy Spellweaver, ItamarG3, heather Jun 23 '17 at 0:48

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Please do not make such broad threads about tags. Make one thread per tag or per group of closely-related tags. $\endgroup$ – Gilles Jun 14 '17 at 21:14
  • $\begingroup$ I know you created subsequent threads for individual points in this - maybe you could add links? $\endgroup$ – heather Jun 23 '17 at 0:48
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the last close vote! :) Personally, I'd prefer that this thread simply die, though I suppose I can put links in once I get home. $\endgroup$ – Ben I.♦ Jun 23 '17 at 1:21
1
$\begingroup$

  1. Maybe just . Any example or analogy takes place within the context of a lesson. That would pair nicely with . One for micro issues and one for macro. Plus, is ambiguous by itself. Is teaching the analogy? Is something an analogy for teaching? For teaching with?

  2. I like the focus simply on , whether it be preceded by code, coding, or programming.

  3. Yes.

  4. Absolutely, beginning, in my mind, with . Reading through questions with it, I didn't see any that were made better or were categorized more clearly because of it. I had one in particular (Raspberry Pi course development) that used it, and looking back, I can see that it added nothing other than useless metadata. I got to the point and summarized it well with and . Plus, introduction to what? To whom? At what level? The tag almost by definition wants for more information. As a result it does less good than harm.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ "Introduction ... at what level?" How else would you clasify level if not introductory/beginner, intermediate, advanced? $\endgroup$ – thesecretmaster♦ Jun 13 '17 at 11:47
  • $\begingroup$ @thesecretmaster Why even classify level? That's the point I'm trying to illustrate. It doesn't add to the accuracy of the categorization, and it is incredibly subjective. $\endgroup$ – Peter♦ Jun 13 '17 at 13:03
  • $\begingroup$ As a teacher, covering introductory topics is different from covering advanced topics. $\endgroup$ – thesecretmaster♦ Jun 13 '17 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ @thesecretmaster Potentially, but sound pedagogy remains sound regardless of the level or topic. And if the question is about an intro or an advanced topic, the topic should be the tag $\endgroup$ – Peter♦ Jun 13 '17 at 14:23
  • $\begingroup$ Into algorithms != advanced algorithms. Unless you want 3 tags per topic, the current approch is more effective. $\endgroup$ – thesecretmaster♦ Jun 13 '17 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ @thesecretmaster But in that instance, let's say you have beginners learning bubble sort and advanced students learning Dijkstra's algorithm. For the former, bubble-sort and sorting-algorithm sum up everything. With the latter, use dijkstra, graph-theory, and searching-algorithm. If someone said they had an intro level question, we'd ask for much more context. The same goes for tags. Intro has to be supplemented by more specific categories. As a result it cannot stand alone. If it cannot stand alone, as Atwood's meta-tag post argues, it's not a worthwhile tag. $\endgroup$ – Peter♦ Jun 13 '17 at 15:02
0
$\begingroup$

  1. This seems like a broadening rather than a narrowing. would encompass any way of demonstrating something, while only refers to analogies and historically has been a fairly narrow tag.

  2. This makes perfect sense. Code style is the same idea as conventions. The only slight tweak I'd make it simply merging into because it's simply much more used. Either way, I'd wait on a giant retag because mods can do that without bumping them.

  3. Sure, I do like this phrasing better, and it is slightly broader. I don't really see a huge difference, but it is a small improvement.

  4. This needs to be more specific, and maybe should be a separate question. All the above tags seem valuable to me, but I'd elaborate on a later meta question.

$\endgroup$

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