Do we need a tag for “Facebook”?

I just saw a proposed tag for "Facebook" based on (I believe) one question; further, I voted to close that question.

Do we need a tag for "Facebook"? Does having extra tags in the system do any harm?

• I think we can avoid heading down this particular (potentially endless) avenue of tags. – Glen_b Jan 26 '14 at 5:28
• Hi Peter, do you want to accept one of the answers? This issue is long settled. Thanks! – amoeba says Reinstate Monica Feb 10 '17 at 10:57

I think it was created after I asked this question, since I didn't see it when I posted my question and someone added it later.

The "facebook" tag is probably overlapped with the "social-network" tag, at least for statistical purposes.

• Yes, I added it because I thought it would be the first question of many that would possibly come up later (regarding facebook statistics). I was not aware about the social-network tag (so facebook could be a synonym of it, imo). And congratulations for your question. I had never seen something like that before on CV (>10K views in less than 2 days). Welcome to Meta. – Andre Silva Jan 25 '14 at 17:49
• @AndreSilva I think the reason of its popularity is better explained by Groucho Marx: "I know that the title of this book is misleading, but there's more than one way to sell a book or skin a cat". – LessFaceMoreBook Jan 25 '14 at 19:51

I believe that for the time being there is no reason to add a facebook specific tag given that the social-network exist.

If questions about social network statistics start gaining momentum we can start differentiating then. As it stands, having a single question using a tag is pointless.

Not much use in closing the question now; at present, it's 11th most popular, and poised to continue climbing. I shared that initial impulse though, FWIW. I find its popularity useful for redefining the utility of CV as a whole—not that it needed redefining necessarily, but I think I understand it better now, thanks to this question.

As for , one question certainly doesn't make the tag needed. Searching for "facebook" yields 66 hits at present though, so if is going to be useful, it should probably be applied to some of those other questions (of which there are less than 66, because that number includes answers). That being said, those questions may not be about Facebook, so if too few of the questions actually are, the tag seems quite useless from an empirical perspective, for now.

Furthermore, since already exists, has been used 21 times, and has a good, non-redundant wiki and excerpt ('s are redundant), the synonym suggestion,
"$\rightarrow$" would naturally find its way to a meta-question like Current tag synonym candidates, by my own hand if no one else's.

Since the preceding answers argue for this synonymity as well, and have received their share of upvotes already, I've submitted an edit to the question in question that replaces with (among some other pretty trivial changes). It got accepted, so I guess that's that? now appears on zero questions! I suggest it be removed entirely...though this will happen automatically if it remains an orphan for six months.

might fit on some of those questions that mention "facebook" though, so there may remain some work to do, depending on whether editing those questions is worth bumping them up in the active questions list. This (and the OP itself) raise a number of related meta-questions:

• I think with "I voted to close that question", Peter Flom was referring to a different question (which asked people's opinion about the possibility of creating a more exciting social network than Facebook). Such question seems to have been deleted. – LessFaceMoreBook Jan 27 '14 at 14:58
• As stated in my comment under LessFaceMoreBook's answer I thought I had a good reason to create the tag. If is still possible to make facebook (x0) a synonym of social-network we can handle this issue permanently. – Andre Silva Jan 27 '14 at 16:53
• I think nobody considered the idea of closing the question. That would be plainly irrational. – usεr11852 says Reinstate Monic Jan 27 '14 at 21:46
• Interesting interpretation of the OP. @AndreSilva, I agree you had a good reason; just calling your attention to the proposed rule. You might want to downvote it! :) As for considering closing LessFaceMoreBook's question, think about how many individual examples of basic statistical errors we could find in random articles if that were CV's purview. My initial impulse occurred before considering the popularity of this particular article, and was more of a "slippery slope" concern. I'm certainly glad the question remained open (+1'd it and most answers myself), but even its original phrasing.. – Nick Stauner Jan 27 '14 at 23:46
• ...implicitly acknowledged that it might not have appeared to be a statistical question at first. That first line has since been edited out (again, rightly so), but I take it to indicate @LessFaceMoreBook recognized some risk of closure too, maybe even the rationality of some possible arguments for closure. – Nick Stauner Jan 27 '14 at 23:48
• I believe the OP refers to the question of having a facebook tag. You seem to refer to the question about Facebook coming to an end; that is why I wrote that comment. I should have been more explicit so you do not misinterpret what I was talking about. Sorry! (Check @LessFaceMoreBook 's comment also, I think he has the same understanding of the issue as me.) – usεr11852 says Reinstate Monic Jan 28 '14 at 1:14
• Sorry, I might still be confused. I responded to your comment as a reference to LessFaceMoreBook's question, and closing that being irrational. If you meant closing @PeterFlom's OP here would be plainly irrational, I'd still disagree, because my answer lists some existing meta-threads and an automatic mechanism for resolving the issue of the particular "facebook" tag. Closing this as duplicative might (or might not!) direct additional attention to those meta-threads, which could always use more. Rational (if incomplete and unimportant) reasons for closing aside, I've +1'd this question too! :) – Nick Stauner Jan 28 '14 at 1:25