Is there any particular reason that we don't tag supplements and tales with the numbers of the SCPs they feature? It would make browsing tales relating to a given SCP much more convenient and intuitive, as you would have to click one button to see all material related to the given article. I see no reason not to do this.
As usual with suggestions of major changes to the tag system, the people to go to are Troy or Quik, or Aelanna who is in charge of the tag system and has final say unless an admin overrides her.
EDIT: Oops, I see you sent a PM to Aelanna. That's what I get for not checking chat. Anyway, if Aelanna approves of it I don't have an objection.
Troy has a project running to find a way to make it easier to track Tales by which SCP(s) they reference, so that's already being looked into. As for supplements, those are SUPPOSED to be linked back to the original SCP by a "parent" thingie. My understanding as to why we don't just put the numbers in the tags is that then we would basically have to tag every SCP with its own number, which would create a MASSIVE overclutter in the tags.
Essentially: there's already a method in place that links supplements and SCPs, if people would actually use them (or Staff corrects), and we're trying to figure out a way to link Tales and SCPs without being obtrusive about it.
Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.
Pretty much everything Drewbear has said. This page already tracks supplements that weren't parented properly, and tags for individual SCPs would bloat the tag cloud to an obscene degree. What is being described is something that was once brought up as a potential new feature, "tags" versus "keywords". That would allow this to happen, but Wikidot doesn't really have the power to do so.
I would like to point out that in addition to Aelanna's tracking page, I have one that tracks under-tagged pages. Please feel free to use it if you'd like.
Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.