7

I did not have any idea what tag to apply to Crossing out sentences. So I invented , which would cover underlines, strike-outs, etc. Do you think this is a useful tag to keep, and if so, should we retroactively apply it to relevant questions?

Edit: It seems that the general idea is accepted, but the name of the tag could be improved. The following suggestions have been made

1
  • 1
    It's a pity that we can't define parent-tags, i.e. that {underlining} would be a child of {text-decorations}.
    – Martin Scharrer Mod
    Mar 21 '11 at 17:17
3

If we did want one generic term to cover all these sorts of things (underlining, strikeout, osv) then perhaps -effects is better than -decorations. I feel that "effects" is a more common term (but then I could be wrong, and I'm probably the worst person to comment on tags as I've yet to figure out what to do with them).

1

A few days ago, I was tempted to create a new tag for another question but didn't do it because the tag seemed so petty. However, a more general tag is a good idea. And yes, I would apply such a tag retroactively. (But then, I'm lockstep. ;-))

1
  • 3
    Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
    – Hendrik Vogt
    Mar 17 '11 at 8:37
1

A quich search for underline and also for underlining shows some questions - in my opinion already enough to get a tag. Many have tags such as , , --tagging could be more specific there.

I don't like a tag though. Does a new user with a question about underlining really find this tag? I don't have a problem with an expressive tag.

As known, retagging should be done sparingly and very discreetly if at all.

4
  • 1
    I looked in vain for a suitable tag for this question after I answered it. But when I saw {text-decorations} my immediate thought was "Huh?". I would prefer {underlining}.
    – Alan Munn
    Mar 17 '11 at 12:20
  • @Alan: {underlining} doesn't make much sense for a question about striking out text.
    – Caramdir
    Mar 17 '11 at 16:38
  • @Caramdir, I realised that and added another suggestion in my answer. Although strikeout is just underlining raised by .5ex :-) (Can't edit the comment though.)
    – Alan Munn
    Mar 17 '11 at 16:49
  • 1
    I like the idea about one general tag for underlining, strike-out etc. The specific tags like {underlining} could be made synonyms to make it easier for people.
    – Martin Scharrer Mod
    Mar 21 '11 at 17:16
1

It seems to me that if a tag is to be useful it has to cover a large enough but not overly large range of questions. {text-decorations} is so tikz :-)

Do we want this tag to include questions about e.g. changing font shapes/weights?

What about {text-properties} (or to use a term familiar to Word users {character-formatting} (which in Word is contrasted with {paragraph-formatting}))?

3
  • These tags seem a bit too general for me. For example, one could argue that the font is also a text property.
    – Caramdir
    Mar 17 '11 at 19:04
  • While I agree that they are general (which is part of the goal), I think the relevant criterion for whether they are too general is whether people would think that {text-properties} would include fonts questions or whether {fonts} would be the logical better choice. This, of course, is an empirical question, although I don't know that we can do the required experiment. I think what some of us don't like is that 'decorations' is not a term in common use (other than in tikz) so it might not come to mind as the right category. That's part of the reason I suggested categories similar to Word's.
    – Alan Munn
    Mar 18 '11 at 2:44
  • I didn't say that {text-decorations} is a good choice (it was just the only idea I had). What do you think about Andrew's {text-effects}?
    – Caramdir
    Mar 18 '11 at 5:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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