Should we have a tag called ? In one of its usages, it is synonymous with . In the other usage, it is about non-linguistic history – the history of a theory, social movement, convention, etc. This latter category is where What are the rationale of people speaking/teaching Esperanto? and What is the reasoning behind the selection of the IPA symbols? fall.

What do people think we should do about this?


2 Answers 2


In my opinion, tag should not be used for historical linguistics because there is already and because it's misleading (history refers to the study of past events in general), so it must be retagged.

As for the usage for non-linguistic history, I think just let users use it first, and later we decide whether it's useful or we should kill it.


I am not sure there is much value in having a tag to encompass both these things, as they are pretty conceptually disjoint. I would propose that we make a second tag, perhaps called for questions of the second type. After time passes (and we are sure that there are no other uses for a history tag), we should make a synonym of either or .

  • It might also be worth giving some of these problem tags more time to crystallize. We're still a very new site and it's hard to guess how things will be used. Sep 23, 2011 at 14:01

You must log in to answer this question.

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