So, we've stated explicitly that (use, setup, features, account, support) is off topic. Yet, we have almost 200 questions tagged <>.

Should these posts be auto-moderated (if possible).

From a glance at the questions, it appears that many of them are mis-tagged; i.e. <> really isn't a relevant tag for the question. So, it would be unwise/unproductive to auto-moderate all tagged questions.

Is this just a bite-the-bullet-and-edit/close-vote-each-question-one-by-one situation?

Perhaps more importantly going forward: can this tag be locked down somehow? Is there some way to let users know that their question is very likely off-topic if it can legitimately be tagged with <>? (I have just edited the tag wiki, if someone would be so kind as to approve the edit.)

The downside of bulk re-tagging all of those questions? They're now all marked as "active" and appear on the homepage. Well, not a downside ... just misleading because I'm used to newly active questions appearing first. – EAMann Apr 6 '12 at 17:36
I'm noticing that, too... but the vast majority are mis-tagged, and many of them remain unresolved. So, at the very least, perhaps this effort will result in more questions being resolved, one way or another. – Chip Bennett Apr 6 '12 at 17:38
I'm also noticing a similar issue with <> tagged questions. Are questions about the site ever going to be in-scope for WPSE? – Chip Bennett Apr 6 '12 at 17:39
Some yes. Specifically questions about interacting with the APIs hosted on would (IMO) be in-scope. – EAMann Apr 6 '12 at 17:40
Okay, thanks. That gives me some direction for fleshing out that tag wiki, as well. – Chip Bennett Apr 6 '12 at 17:42

2 Answers 2

Update <> tag wiki to reflect limited on-topic tag scope

Proposed <> tag excerpt:

PLEASE NOTE: Questions about use, account, setup, features, and support are off-topic for this site. is a hosted blogging service version that runs on the WordPress platform. It allows a limited number of plugins and themes, although one can pay to have more options.

Proposed < tag wiki:

PLEASE NOTE: Questions about use, account, setup, features, and support are off-topic for this site.

[][1] is a hosted blogging service that runs on the WordPress platform. This means that you don't have to worry about technical issues (setup, upgrades, backups, scalability, ...), but you get less customization options: a limited number of plugins and themes, no ability to run custom PHP code, etc.

[][2] is the home of the software itself. It is an open source project, which means that you are free to use and modify it. You have more flexibility, but more responsibilities too.

For more about the differences you can read [" vs."][3].

I can certainly buy the argument for not bolding, at least in the tag excerpt, in order not to "scare" users. I think it fits in the full tag wiki, but it's not worth bike-shedding, IMHO. – Chip Bennett Apr 6 '12 at 17:01
Approved the excerpt :) – EAMann Apr 6 '12 at 17:48

No, we've stated explicitly that support questions are off-topic. Questions regarding specific features and account issues that are unique to are also off-topic. But generic WordPress questions that just happen to be related to a .COM site instead of a .ORG site are on-topic.

Uh, didn't I already make that distinction: " (use, setup, features, account, support) is off topic"? And, for, generic-WordPress questions, the <> tag is generally superfluous, as a) the question is no longer specific to, and b) anything that is specific to is, as previously stated, out of scope for WPSE. – Chip Bennett Apr 6 '12 at 16:36
Also: please justify your rejection of my tag wiki edit? Why should we not make clear to users the VERY limited nature of the in-topic scope of the <> tag? – Chip Bennett Apr 6 '12 at 16:41
I left the majority of the edit, just not the banner at the top. Let's finish the conversation here with multiple members of the community weighing in before committing that change. – EAMann Apr 6 '12 at 16:53
The reason I don't want that large of a banner is to prevent frightening people who have legitimate WordPress questions but who use and don't understand the difference. Yes, we need to be clear about our scope, but large, bold messages like this come across as very cold. Particularly to people struggling to understand the application (WP) and the site in the first place. – EAMann Apr 6 '12 at 16:54
Fair enough. I'll post my proposed tag wiki edit as a separate answer, and solicit feedback. – Chip Bennett Apr 6 '12 at 16:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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