Honestly, at the end of the day, I think most questions of why we should give tale series tags can be answered the same way we'd answer questions of why GoIs or canons or other things have tags. The ordering of tale series is only one benefit lost among multiple others, and at the very least, assigning tags to tale series won't do harm anything.

If I have a tale series authored entirely by myself that almost qualifies for a tag (let's say 4 entries), and I allow two authors to each contribute a tale to the series, that brings the series to 6x3. Under Bleep's proposed system, I think that would somehow *not* qualify for the 5x1 requirement even though both numbers are greater? This would disincentivise collaboration in tale series.

(It could be argued that collaborating on tale series is an indication that the tale series should be a canon, but I disagree - who is allowed to contribute to a tale series is the series' custodian's choice, rather than a canon which must be open to all - plus I don't think it's up to tags to enforce that distinction anyway.)

Edit: Croquembouche makes an entirely valid counterpoint. I stand corrected.

I don't see allowing a veto as improving author autonomy, it's more like… single-author autarchy. If I wrote the first article about something and then a bunch more people built it up, they should be able to get a tag and I should not be able to veto it. This is a collaborative fiction website, not a blog.

Authors do not have autonomy re: the tags on their articles anyway. They have, in fact, less autonomy there than they have in almost any other respect… and for the purposes of site navigation, that's a good thing. Tagging should be consistent across the board.

Allowing a veto gives primacy to one person and reduces both the autonomy, and the capacity for collective action, of everyone else.

I support the 5x1, 7x2, 9x3 system, though I think 6x1, 8x2, 10x3 would be better so the final one lines up with other tag qualification systems.

Edit: Preliminary Tech Consensus was either 5x3 or 10x1 as a minimum for tale series tags.

Personally, I think it might be valuable to consider reintroducing tale series tags, albeit with substantially different requirements. It would not only assist in navigating individual tale series, but allow for a slight boost in tale exposure (although exposure is not the direct purpose of tags). I am not on tech team, and am only JS, so it's not my place to make a direct pitch for this, but I think it is at least worth bringing forward for potential discussion.

Section 4: Defining Authorial Autonomy

We have previously allowed authors to veto any tags that they had a major say in the creation of. However, this is unpopular and we currently believe that this runs counter to the ideas of the tag system as a whole. Going forward, we will end this practice as such. Authors will be allowed to object to a tag, and their objections will be considered, but will not be taken as absolute and totally block a tag from creation.

I would appreciate further discussion on this point.

I'm inclined to agree here. Author request should be taken into account when deciding whether to approve a tag, especially if the author in question is a major contributor, but IMO it should never be a blocker. Tags which can be requested are intended as a reader tool and aren't really a thing where author autonomy is relevant.

However, this is unpopular and we currently believe that this runs counter to the ideas of the tag system as a whole.

entirely accurate assessment here

Therefore, we are proposing a system in which authors are allowed a veto, but the Tech Team can override the veto if the tag reaches a 20 by 5 standard

weird solution to this problem though. this is better than having a single author be able to overturn a tag request, but the better alternative is not allowing them to at all. tags aren't page content and it's somewhat unreasonable to consider page tags a threat to author autonomy. i say cut this entirely and don't let authors veto tags - you can't have an accurate tagging system if people can simply choose to not have certain tags on their pages

Please use the following template for tag approvals. Stating what category the tag you are requesting falls under is mandatory. Do not use a collapsible in your post.

**Tag Request:** //TAG-NAME-HERE// **Tag Type:** //TAG-CATEGORY// **Description:** DESCRIPTION HERE. ADDITIONAL NOTES OR REASONING HERE. # [[[first-article]]] by [[*user AUTHOR]] (if author is applicable) X articles by Y authors.

After you make a post, the Technical Team will review your tag and either approve or reject it. Review of tags happens in the #tagging room of the Tech Team Discord Server, which is publicly viewable. Contact a member of the Tech Team if you would like an invite to the server, or if you would like to read excerpted logs of your approval/rejection. If your tag is rejected, a member of the Tech Team will reply to your request to explain why the tag was denied. You are allowed to appeal a denial once, if you disagree with the Team's decision.

For the Groups of Interest, Canon, Characters, Tale Series and Locations categories: Authors are allowed to veto the proposal of a tag if they are the originator of the concept. This veto may be overriden by the Technical Team if the tag would be applied to 20 articles. Authors are allowed to veto the inclusion of one or more of their articles from a tag proposal, reducing article and author counts. These rules do not apply to any other category.

This is a proposal to revisit certain elements of the tag approval process, including tag standards and the general process of approval. This is a follow-up thread to an earlier thread posted by Rounderhouse, although adjusted to account for input the Tech Team received from the Community and to cover a few other areas of the tag approval process.

This proposal contains the following four points of note:

1. Change the process of approval to be more codified and clear for both staff and users who are applying for tags.
2. Add an exception to the rules surrounding collapsibles long posts in the forums for the tag approval thread specifically.
3. Codify and set article/author minimum and recommended counts for every tag category, as well as define if each category can be requested.
4. Define the limits of authorial autonomy when it comes to tags.

Section 1: Codifying the Approval Process

This section, technically speaking, does not require any staff approval and could be put forward by the Tech Team as is. However, we are bringing this up at this time to better explain the process, and make things clearer.

The first change is that the two currently existing tag request threads — the Character Tag Thread and the general Tag Thread — will be condensed into one, singular tag thread. Character tags will no longer have a different approval process under this proposal, and will therefore not need a separate thread.

The second change is who can approve a tag. Currently, the general Tag Thread requires an Operational Staffer on the Tech Team, while the Character Tag Thread requires a Junior Staffer from Tech. This will be changed to discussion by the Team, rather than singular staff members. We currently already use this as the standard for tag approvals, with them discussed by the team as a whole, rather than approved by individual staffers. This sets this expectation in place, and requires us to discuss them rather than approve on an individual basis.

Thirdly, the acting staff member will be required to post a reasoning for why the tag was rejected as a reply to initial request. We currently have been doing this for years, but this has not been officially codified and we are not required to do so. In the interest of transparency, we will be making this a requirement.

Section 2: Collapsibles and Long Posts

This section asks to make tag requests exempt from the rules requiring long forum posts to be placed in a collapsible. The Tech Team uses collapsibles in the thread as a visual short hand to help us organize the thread to see if we have approved or rejected a tag — we will be asking users to not put their tag requests in a collapsible. However, there is currently a rule that will mandate they do so — so we need this rule changed in order to actually ask users to not put tag requests in collapsibles.

Section 3: Article/Author Minimums and Recommendations

This section goes over how many articles and how many authors are required for each tag approval. Many of these tag categories do not have previously defined minimums — these categories have been marked with a ☆ to indicate the minimum for them is brand new. More information on each category can be found here. None of the changes in this section will be applied retroactively.

Regarding the difference between minimums and recommendations, and when they will be used: We will generally tend to use the minimum for new and rising content, and the recommendation for older and stagnant articles. We will always prefer the recommendation and users giving articles that meet the higher benchmark. This is under the idea that new and rising content will eventually meet the recommendation, and a tag approval will help it reach that point. For older articles, it is less likely that they will get more additional articles. The Tech Team reserves the ability to deny tag that meet minimums but do not pass the recommendations for concerns of notability.

As an example: when the vikander-kneed tag was requested, it met the minimums but not requirements. All of the articles for it were under three months old. It then later went on to easily meet the requirements, and was likely helped by the tag. In contrast, a tag for an the author avatar of an old, retired staff member that happens to have 5x3 is unlikely to ever get another article that would qualify for the tag — would likely be rejected for low notability.

In cases where there is no author requirement, the article count is high enough that it is unlikely that one or two authors alone would generate such a volume of a single, new type of content. Therefore, if a single author does meet such a requirement, we can feel comfortable to recognizing that.

Section 4: Defining Authorial Autonomy

We currently allow authors to veto tags based on content they are responsible for initially developing. This has been set as a hard limit — if the author says no, the tag is blocked. However, this is unpopular and we currently believe that this runs counter to the ideas of the tag system as a whole. Therefore, we are proposing a system in which authors are allowed a veto, but the Tech Team can override the veto if the tag reaches a 20 by 5 standard. This number shows a strong interest in the content and a clear benefit to the tag, but allows us to respect authorial autonomy.

Users are allowed to veto an inclusion an article of theirs being included in a tag request and receiving a new tag when it is an appropriate category. This reduces the article and author count of the proposal.

This is relevant for tags in the Canon, Groups of Interest, Tale Series, Characters, Locations categories. Other categories are not covered under this clause.

This discussion will run for one week. This thread is open to staff of all levels.

Below this post is the intended first post, containing the rules, for the new combined tag thread.