0
\$\begingroup\$

I wanted to edit a question by adding what I consider to be relevant tags. The edit was rejected with two different reasons:

enter image description here

The tags I wanted to add were the ones user_2 mentions: [blackout] and [power-outage].

I know that there probably won't be a ton of questions with these tags, but I still think they are relevant to the question and on-topic. And I can't see how those tags could be any more general, except [Power-distribution] which really doesn't say anything about what the question is about except "not electronics".

I believe that possible new users (myself included) might want to use those tags in the future. I'm quite certain the person posting the question wanted to add those tags, but couldn't due to low rep. For the moment, the only relevant tags that can be used by power system engineers (utility scale) are: [Power-transmission] and [Power-distribution].

[blackout] and [power-outage] should probably be synonyms as they basically mean the same thing, but I don't know exactly how that works.

I know that this site contains mostly questions about electronics, but according to this meta post, power system questions are on topic.

I would understand if my edit was rejected as too minor, but that was not the case. (The first rejection reason is in my opinion plain wrong, but probably the user didn't consider it a good edit and just picked a random reason to avoid wasting time. The main reason for suggesting the edit was actually to create the tags for future new users, and write tag wikis.

Any views on this topic? Am I wrong?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I was User_1 in this case. While reviewing your edit, I essentially reached a similar conclusion to Dave's. But I ended up picking a ready made comment made available by the system that offered the closest reason for rejecting the edit, while Dave took the time to explain it properly. \$\endgroup\$ – Ricardo Jul 11 '14 at 1:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sorry if the lack of a better explanation caused any confusion. \$\endgroup\$ – Ricardo Jul 11 '14 at 1:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Ricardo: I've been around long enough on SO to know how it works, I've been doing the same on a daily basis there. After reviewing a thousand edits, you stop writing custom messages. That's also why I only barely mentioned your reject reason. But thanks for commenting =) \$\endgroup\$ – Stewie Griffin Jul 18 '14 at 10:52
3
\$\begingroup\$

Your proposed tags are both redundant and too narrow. The discussion of failures is an essential subtopic of both and .

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ok, but if being a subtopic makes it redundant, then I have to ask: what about: Voltage, current, power, parallel ... ? Aren't they all redundant too? Would it make sense to use only one of those for a question, nothing else? I can see why you think it's too narrow, (although I disagree). \$\endgroup\$ – Stewie Griffin Jul 10 '14 at 15:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @RobertP.: I said essential subtopic. The whole point of the design of power transmission and distribution systems is how to handle faults and other unusual conditions. Otherwise, you'd just string together some wires and transformers and be done with it. \$\endgroup\$ – Dave Tweed Jul 10 '14 at 15:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ @RobertP. oh trust me, those generic voltage/current/etc tags are constantly topics of contention here on meta. \$\endgroup\$ – Passerby Jul 10 '14 at 22:49

You must log in to answer this question.

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