Tag suggestions [solved]

Hello,

I have some suggestions about the tags:

1. "goats and carpines”

I believe this should be caprines.

2. ”Famous sportsperson"

I suggest this should be called simply "Sportsperson” for consistency. None of the other tags in this category is “famous", i.e. famous artist, famous politician, etc.

3. “Deer and cervidae”

I suggest renaming this to “Deer and cervids”. This is the correct English plural, and all the other tags follow the “s” plural:  canids, camelids, equines, etc.

4. I suggest “Trophy of arms” as a new tag. There are many coins, banknotes, and exonumia exhibiting this:

N#337968

N#167947
N#319453
N#205643
N#314523
N#315255
N#312930
N#248152 
N#314523

Thank you

1, 3 and 4 are done.

I would call it Athlete, looks better in my opinion and means the same.

Idolenz

I would call it Athlete, looks better in my opinion and means the same.

According this:

• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/athlete
• https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sportsman (sportsperson not exists)

sportsman is more general and can be more correct.

If this is modify, in Spanish is better “Deportista” (person who practices sports) than “Atleta” (1. A man who took part in the ancient public games of Greece and Rome; 2. Person who practices athletics; 3. Strong and muscular person).

sportsperson is in OED

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/187476

(you need a registered user to open link above)

sportsperson is more politically correct than sportsman

zegeri

sportsperson is more politically correct than sportsman

Yes.

I think “famous” here can help because Sports representation often include human figures who are not famous people. It does not happen I think for philosophy or politics or etc.

So when users will type in “sport…” to find relevant tags, they could chose “sportsperson” whereas we want here to keep only famous ones,not not human figures without any names, if I am clear :-)

Lets remember seeing tags as lists can create consistency desires whereas they are not supposed to be scrolled like that

Compendium

I think “famous” here can help because Sports representation often include human figures who are not famous people. It does not happen I think for philosophy or politics or etc.

That is not correct. Here are some examples of non-famous artists (N# 326153,  N# 307378, N# 305833, N# 185349), explorers (N# 73728), military leaders (N# 45901, N# 299417, N# 93398, N# 247751, N# 268054), monarchs (N# 341237, N# 211890), philosophers (N# 217523), politicians (N# 235125, N# 231560, N# 138240, N# 216555), religious figures (N# 316918, N# 304539, N# 83789, N# 173936), scientists (N# 308707, N# 203482, N# 331605)

Compendiumwe want here to keep only famous ones,not not human figures without any names, if I am clear :-)

The question of fame is highly subjective. Are you suggesting that any figure with a name is famous? 

An example: Globi is famous in Switzerland but likely unknown everywhere else.

So are all sportspeople, monarchs, and bishops famous just because they have a name? How is the line drawn?

I totally agree fame is subjective, and wanted to underline just the fact that in this context “famous” means only “is an actual sportsman or woman who lived for real”. We could change famous for another word if you want, even if I think it fulfills its purpose.

Of course there are representation of artists or else as “idea”, but I feel mistagging is way less a risk as people are potentially typing “sport” while tagging and potentially chose “sportsperson” by mistake if we remove “famous” whereas wouldnt look for “politician” in a case where its not an actual real character depicted

If I'm clear? Sorry if I'm not

Compendium

people are potentially typing “sport” while tagging and potentially chose “sportsperson” by mistake if we remove “famous” 

Why is this not a risk with scientist here for instance?

… sorry but this argument is flawed and you also contradict yourself:

CompendiumSports representation often include human figures who are not famous people. It does not happen I think for philosophy or politics or etc.

CompendiumOf course there are representation of artists or else as “idea”

I won't fight for it, just tried to find the reason behind current situation.

I felt it was easier to begin to look for "sports" as a keyword and click on sportsman with autocompletion than it would be for science, but indeed that's subjective because I don't have any data about it :-)

I was afraid we wanted to fix something just because list as a whole seems inconsistent which is a big bias if you consider users never use tags as a list but in real situations where they type something; it's why it is acceptable to me we don't always follow same exact syntax if there are legit reasons to do so (but I can't prove there were reasons in this case, so it's maybe a question of “do we trust someone's old decision or do we consider they necessarily did a mistake to fix")
 

stratocaster

 

Why is this not a risk with scientist here for instance?

Nice find! But still, having found one or even a few examples does not make it a general rule… i can probably link hundreds of entries just through Olympics series for sportspeople, I really doubt there is a comparison in volume with Science or Politics, even after this nice example of random anonymous scientist reproduced here.

… sorry but this argument is flawed and you also contradict yourself:

CompendiumSports representation often include human figures who are not famous people. It does not happen I think for philosophy or politics or etc.

CompendiumOf course there are representation of artists or else as “idea”

Dont be sorry, but please also dont surrender to bad faith: it is not a contradiction, simply because there was a week between the two quotes. I did say something too simplistic and indeed wrong, as you proved after there were counter examples, so I took it into account quite naturally to continue the discussion :-)

Compendium

i can probably link hundreds of entries just through Olympics series for sportspeople

And you could also find thousands of coins depicting anonymous centurions (military leaders), praetors, or consuls (politicians); music medals depicting anonymous instrument players (artists); wedding and coronation medals depicting bishops (religious figures); and so on.

Additionally, your assumption is that this inconsistency benefits contributors. However, for users who search by tag, this appears as an inconsistent list and your subjective reasoning is not apparent:

Ok, why not, as I said I wont fight for it… obviously having Pejounet explaining why its the only request out of four he chose not to follow would help.

My main objective was to make the ticket move forward and I tried to understand any reason he could have had but I admit it was a refusal bias :-)

I'll change it

Reading your example raised another question for me: until now I always used “religious figure” for saints or gods for instance, never for just “clergyman”.

Did I misunderstood? Do you think we should separate Clergy from “people on who one can submit prayers” if its a correct definition for Religious figure?

Compendium

Reading your example raised another question for me: until now I always used “religious figure” for saints or gods for instance, never for just “clergyman”.

Did I misunderstood? Do you think we should separate Clergy from “people on who one can submit prayers” if its a correct definition for Religious figure?

I always thought that a “religious figure” was a human: prophet..., pope, bishop, friar, monk, nun..., muezzin, imam..., rabbi... lama... but not gods (God, Allah, Yahweh, Buda..., Thor, Zeus..., will be “Mythology”). Perhaps the tag “Mythology” can be renamed to “God or mythology”.