Over on main we had a question: " pstricks and beamer compilation with xelatex results in xkeyval error " and the questioner requested the be created and placed on his question.

Following the philosophy outlined in Our set of tags I went ahead and did that. It says packages and classes should get their own tags. xkeyval is a pretty big package and despite the fact that we have had no questions about it yet I think it's merited.

What say you, metafolk? Is the linked meta post still policy?

As it turned out the question was unrelated to the use of xkeyval; that was just the package that threw the error (it was a symptom, not a cause). So I detagged the question and xkeyval is currently an orphan.

  • @Matthew: Although it was me who gave you reason to post this question (no longer traceable, sorry), I prefer to let the tagging pros answer this. Mar 3, 2011 at 14:58
  • 2
    @Hendrik: I think everyone with editing privileges should think of themselves as a potential tagger. But you don't have to have an opinion if you don't want to. :-) Mar 3, 2011 at 15:28
  • This also raises the inverse question: if it turns out that a package is relevant to how a question was answered, should the question be tagged with the package tag after it's been answered?
    – Seamus
    Mar 3, 2011 at 17:51
  • @Seamus see lockstep's response to my (identical) comment on his answer.
    – Alan Munn
    Mar 3, 2011 at 18:27
  • So, if I read this here correctly, tex.stackexchange.com/questions/12631/… should be tagged with {xkeyval}? (I was about to tag that question, but given that there is a discussion I thought I'd ask first).
    – Caramdir
    Mar 4, 2011 at 16:58
  • @Caramdir: I would agree that question should be tagged xkeyval. Mar 8, 2011 at 11:44

3 Answers 3


Tags for packages are fine. Besides the package tag, I suggest adding the respective concept tag, also if you note such an existing question.

If, for example, you would see a question with only

And, of course, if you write a question, choose your tags wisely: specify

  • a concept tag: what are you doing, whats desired

  • a package tag: what are you using, which is the specific context

  • a class tag: but only if you know your question deals with features or options of this class


Although our tagging practice is not consistent in this regard, I think that "tags for packages and classes" is still -- and should be -- our policy in force. Tags like may not be that important for prospective respondents (who will typically browse questions tagged ), but they are servicable for questioners who look for specific advice on, say, \cftXfont.

If a questioner uses a particular tag which later turns out to be irrelevant for his/her problem, it is perfectly fine to remove the tag. If this turns the tag into an orphan (for now), then so be it. Tags for very small or specialized packages may be dispensable, but I reckon too that deserves its own tag.

  • What about retagging relative to the answers? There are times where this seems like a logical thing to do, even though the question itself doesn't know that it could be about that tag.
    – Alan Munn
    Mar 3, 2011 at 16:43
  • 3
    @Alan: See this question. Basically, you may add tags in accordance with an accepted answer, but not based on other answers (even if they feature numerous upvotes).
    – lockstep
    Mar 3, 2011 at 17:01

One reason for tagging with packages is that it would be useful for the package maintainers. I wrote in Message to package maintainers that I think that this place would be great for package maintainers to find out about how their package is used and so forth. So to make the place as easy for package maintainers as possible, tagging questions accordingly makes sense.

And note that this is beneficial to the questioner as well, since who better to answer a question on a particular package than the person who wrote it?

You must log in to answer this question.

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