We have the triview1 (these), which have a specific format.
This question is about the effectiveness of defining a structure for questions with specific tags (like the whatnot-review tags). I have a proposition, and I wanted to see what others think of it. Firstly, as it's super relevant, what do people think about the defined structure of review questions (as outlined in the linked meta post)?
Now (secondly), my proposal:
Give more tags a specific format. By this I mean -
resource-request questions should state explicitly what the resource is supposed to give. i.e. "What should one be able to learn from the resource" or "How does the resource help with teaching\learning <subject>?".
layperson questions should state explicitly the background said layperson has, if any. i.e. "My friend comes from the field of Particle Physics, and I was wondering how to explain what the cmd
tracertworks ." (this is funny because trace means something in Particle Physics)
language-choice questions (I almost forgot we had this tag) should state explicitly what the languages suggested will be used with.
These are mere suggestions (except for the first one, which was the original reason I wrote the question) and the reason I didn't post one question for each suggestion is because this post is just to ask what others thought of this.
So, what do you think about giving some tags a preferred structure?
It's a good way to make it clearer if a question with one of those tags is too broad or unclear. A structure should make it clear beyond doubt what's being asked, precisely.