Talk:Tag:editor portal

From dKosopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


"Elections" and "Election" tags

This is not about election tags in general, but these two huge tags in particular: at 2426 diaries and 1185 diaries, respectively.

SarahLee put up a job today that included the following:

Job: elections (2426) Change to "year elections" where "year" is the year the elections being discussed would be held. Delete the tag if the correct one is already there.

This got me to wondering about two issues: whether there were truly no cases in which "elections" is a valid tag, especially when talking about elections in general -- both here and around the world -- as opposed to elections in a specific year. I asked SarahLee this, and she thought that other countries would have their own tags (e.g., "Italian elections"), or another election-related tag would be more appropriate (such as "election integrity").

I've temporarily removed that job so we can discuss it here—what do folks think? Should "elections" be completely wiped out in favor of the year and/or location and/or other related tag? Whatever happens to "elections" should clearly happen to "election", which is barely half as popular.

Thanks for your feedback. I'd like to post these two jobs by Friday at the latest. Not to worry in the meantime: there remain over 800 diary tags to be changed in that job. — Sardonyx 16:09, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

U.S./US/United States/America

I initially put a job up last week to standardize on "United States", but SarahLee pointed out in an email less than an hour later that, since this is a U.S.-based blog, why do we need these tags at all? They're effectively redundant. (We've been removing the "U.S." from "U.S. Army" and other tags for just that reason.)

I wanted to check with the group before restoring the job. My plan would be to ask for the deletion of the following tags:

  • U.S. (72)
  • US (110) (unless it refers to "Us" magazine, I guess)
  • United States (231)
  • United States of America (7)
  • U.S.A. (3)

There are also a couple I hadn't thought of before; SarahLee mentioned the first:

  • America (404)
  • American (95)

And, of course, we should change tags to remove those "U.S.", "US", and "United States" prefixes (and maybe "America" and "American"?) as appropriate...but that can be a separate job. — Sardonyx 25 May 2007

I still think that is a good idea, even if not a critical one. Noting other countries makes sense. Noting the US doesn't. And "America" includes more than the US of A. --SarahLee

Names/Nick Names Protocol

I sent this email to the group today:

We have to determine how to tag names. For example: It's "Jimmy Carter" and "Bill Clinton", not 'James Carter' or 'James Earl Carter' or 'James E. Carter' or 'William Clinton', etc. It's Ted Kennedy (243); no 'Edward M. Kennedy'.
We have: Charles Grassley (23) and Chuck Grassley (14), and Jim McCrery (10), no 'James McCrery'. We have Charles Rangel (82) and Charlie Rangel (2) (I think one of us must have already changed all earlier 'Charlie's to 'Charles', and these 2 'Charlie's are new).
I suggest we stick with the predominate way in which our politicians are called, which means I vote for 'Charlie Rangel', 'Chuck Grassley', etc. We should make an approved list of all 535, plus Governors, judiciary and any other high appointed muckety mucks that regulerly use their nick names. Remember that some, like Ted Kennedy, use a nick name that is not the usual diminutive of their Christian name. Some use their middle name without first initial (D. Kyle Sampson), etc.
Some example Wikipedia entries: Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Charles Rangel, Ted Kennedy, Kyle Sampson, Bud Cummins (real name: Harry Earnest Cummins III)
-Halcyon, 23 May 2007, 13:30 EDT

Please add your comments and I'll work on the list. Or, should I make a list and y'all can comment on specific names? And, of course, please add on names other than Senators, Representatives, cabinet, Supreme Court, Governors that show variants in need of standardizing.

Another aspect of this has to do with 'Jr.' and 'III'. An example would be Martin Luther King. Most people fail to append 'Jr.' though it's clear they are not referencing his father. Some people who may be juniors, we aren't aware of, because their fathers had not been public figures, or may be deceased and the politician doesn't use the 'Jr.' Is there a style book with rules for this that we can use?

-Halcyon 23 May 2007, 13:40 EDT


SarahLee's input:

"I say to just go with what the majority are already using - the tags with the most diaries - because that is the community norm and means fewer corrections in the future."

The Centerfielder:

Going with the community most frequent choice seems ok, but it would be nice if it matched Wikipedia. They must have gone through the same process we're undergoing, so there may be some useful advice in theirtalk pages or disambiguation pages."

Halcyon's reply to SarahLee and the Centerfieldr:

How does one access the Wikipedia discussion page on names (although I don't have time to read it)? I'd be curious about why they have 'Charles Rangel' instead of 'Charlie', yet they have 'Russ Feingold', 'Chuck Grassley', 'Rick Renzi', 'Dutch Ruppersberger', 'Larry Kissell' and 'Duke Cunningham'........ OK.....Here's the official House list ( Perhaps this should be the standard. I think Wikipedia may be going by this list, which probably reflects the Representatives' stated choices.
Here's the Senate directory ( There are discrepancies here: Russell B. Feingold, Edward M. Kennedy, E. Benjamin Nelson....and others, such as 'Barbara A. Mikulski' on the Senate directory, and 'Barbara Mikulski' in Wikipedia.
Here's my guess about the discrepancies: Each Senator or Representative made a choice/preference for the official House/Senate listing. Those who are more sticklers use their name as they use it for other official records (drivers license, voter registration?), and those who are more casual or recognize the marketing value of their 'brand name' or want to be more 'user friendly' for their constituents, are officially listed by their nick names under which they run for office. [This reminds me of that snafu in Northern Virginia where Jim Webb's name got lopped off on the voting machines because he was listed as James H. "Jim" Webb, and the 'Webb' got lopped off.] How Wikipedia made their determinations would be interesting to learn.
So......we're still left with going with Wikipedia, Kommunity majority, or official House/Senate listings (for Congress critters). I think we will still have to make some choices with some names. I specifically would like to know everyones' thoughts about Charles/Charlie Rangel. [On the House listing he's 'Charles B. Rangel'.] There's also the official website of each member, which gives us 'Edward M. Kennedy', for one example. The Google approach includes references to other people who happen to have the same name, so that won't help.
I think we will have to use a combination of Kommunity standard, Wikipedia and our own judgment when the first two differ, which means we will need to make a list and discuss some of the minor characters.

-Halcyon, 23 may 2007, 20:38 EDT

Late addition from Sardonyx:

I'm generally with SarahLee: go with the community's overwhelming favorite, if there is one. To me that means Charles Rangel over Charlie, but the Grassleys are low enough volume that I'm willing to go either way...and willing to wait a bit to see if the community's will becomes clear.
On the question of when to use Jr., I think it's up to the community. The person who is used most frequently without a generational tag gets the plain name, and all others get stuck with the tag (and we have to make sure they get it). Harold Ford (Jr.) is another example: he's 309 without Jr., and 200 with it. The problem we have is that there's a decent chance that a couple of the withouts may refer to his dad, Sr., who made some unfortunate comments during the late campaign. That's a sort of cleanup we haven't generally done: have people go through and make sure the correct person was tagged. — Sardonyx 09:57, 25 May 2007 (PDT)
Jr. causes some problems because people want to put a comma before it - which makes it a separate tag. I wouldn't use it unless there is currently a senior in the news. Re Harold Ford Sr. - I would assume that the diary also has the son's name and that is who people are generally going to search on. Unless the diary is just about the father, I wouldn't worry about a tag for both father and son. Otherwise, I would list the father with his middle initial if we know it/can find it as we do for father and son Bush. or do the Father with "Harold Ford Sr" and leave Jr off the son since he will get written about a lot more and that is the way most folks enter that tag. --SarahLee 21:19, 28 May 2007 (PDT)

Synonym Tags: First Jobs

Moved to cleanup jobs, per retrograde, by CalifSherry

I spent a good bit of time this morning moving some of the completed jobs off the Cleanup Jobs page so you could move these over. I know you have more that can be pulled from the work below, but I would like folks to consider looking at how we might clean up election related tags before things get too much more out of hand as we get into all of the House and Senate races. Example, in cleaning up some old tags tonight, I did a search on "campaign" to try and find the best tag for a diary. Lots of work to do there. What do you all think? --SarahLee 22:26, 17 May 2007 (PDT)

Synonym Tags: Halcyon's Input

Rather than clutter up Retrograde's entry, because I may have inadvertently messed it up, I'm just copying it here, with my comments at each item on which I have an opinion. Where I do not state an opinion I agree with Retrograde's opinion.

Political labels:

  • conservative (319), conservatives (801), conservatism (259)

-I hate the singular forms of 'conservative', republican', 'fundamentalist' etc. since some sound like adjectives, which makes no sense. Conservatives and conservatism are distinct, IMO. -Halcyon

agree re plurals being preferable and since the guideline is always to go with what has the highest number of uses, that is pretty easy to decide. --SarahLee 22:38, 15 May 2007 (PDT)
Cleanup job in progress. — Sardonyx 19:05, 17 August 2007 (PDT)
  • liberal (369), liberals (320), liberalism (215)
-Omit 'liberal' -Halcyon
Cleanup job in progress. — Sardonyx 19:05, 17 August 2007 (PDT)
  • progressive (371), progressives (332), progressivism (61)
I prefer the plural 'progressives' here despite the numbers and it is easier to remember when 'conservatives' is the clear winner above. --SarahLee 22:38, 15 May 2007 (PDT)
Cleanup job in progress. — Sardonyx 19:05, 17 August 2007 (PDT)
  • support our troops (52), support the troops (126) - keep separate if referring to organization names, merge if they are just general terms.

Person, place, company, department and organization names:

  • Department of Homeland Security (62), DHS (144) - probably prefer DHS since it is more popular and the full name is a little long. The tag Homeland Security (469) should probably stay separate as often it is about the topic in general and the department.
There is also 'national security' (515) which is also the same subject matter as 'Homeland Security' --SarahLee 22:38, 15 May 2007 (PDT)
'Homeland Security' is not always the same as 'national security' (as evidenced by the capital 'H' and 'S' of 'Homeland Security' as typed onto the diaries' tags). In many cases 'Homeland Security' actually is meant to stand for the Department of Homeland Security (or 'DHS'). I think most 'Homeland Security' tags are of this ilk, and therefore should be changed to either 'DHS' or whatever we choose as the standard. The rest would likely be few, and could either be eliminated or changed to 'national security'. The reason I believe this is because the term 'homeland' is a construct solely devised for the title of the Department of Homeland Security (and disgustingly reminiscent of 'fatherland'). Thinking about the other cabinet departments, we should use the full names, or common variants thereof: Is it DoJ? No. It's 'Department of Justice'; or is it 'Justice Department'? This should be a separate entry to standardize all of the cabinet departments. -Halcyon 16 May 2007, 18:00 EDT
  • Marianas (36), CNMI (123)

-dengre started with CNMI. Others used lots of variants of both. Last year I went through them all and changed to CNMI. Now I see dengre uses both. Other than the fact that one has to know what CNMI stands for, I prefer it because it's dengre's original tag. No need for both. -Halcyon

I worry that too many won't recall what CNMI stands for and so personally prefer Marianas, but the numbers justify going with CNMI. --SarahLee 22:38, 15 May 2007 (PDT)
  • Martin Luther King Jr. (72), Martin Luther King (163) - probably all about the same person, although it's possible a few may be about MLK Sr. I'd prefer to keep the "Jr." even though the tag without it is currently more frequent.
I think we should go without the Jr. since that is what the number say; Add "Sr.' if is about "Sr."


  • wiretap (95), wiretaps (401), wiretapping (401) - prefer wiretapping for consistency. I would definitely keep illegal wiretapping and warrantless wiretapping separate from wiretapping since the distinctions are important.
  • illegal wiretapping (45), illegal wiretaps (34) - prefer illegal wiretapping
  • warrantless wiretapping (122), warrantless wiretaps (51) - prefer warrantless wiretapping
I would merge all of these warrantless and illegal wiretapping tags into 'warrantless wiretapping' --SarahLee 22:38, 15 May 2007 (PDT)
Agree. Halcyon 16 May 2007, 18:00 EDT
Cleanup job completed putting all illegal and warrantless into "warrantless wiretapping". Sardonyx 19:05, 17 August 2007 (PDT)

-Is there a difference between illegal and warrantless wiretapping? There's also: domestic surveillance (65), warrantless surveillance (72), surveillance (216), nsa surveillance (35) (some of these may refer to /warrantless/domestic), domestic spying (674), and many other variants <(30) -Halcyon

I think that domestic spying should be used for all discussions of surveillance/spying other than wiretapping --SarahLee 22:38, 15 May 2007 (PDT)
How about warrantless searches (39)? It seems not to fit either warrantless wiretapping or domestic spying. (There's also plain "warrantless" (25), but we'll have to look at those individually.) I'd like to get these all into a job this weekend... — Sardonyx 16:44, 8 June 2007 (PDT)


  • book (55), books (419) - prefer books

-We need to standardize the various book-related tags: book review(109), book ban (4), book chat (5), book club (19). A lot of the 'books' diaries are book reviews. There are also minor variants. -Halcyon

I think they could all be merged into 'books' except for kossacks diaries that are actually 'book reviews' in which case I would keep that tag for that specific type of diary. --SarahLee 22:38, 15 May 2007 (PDT)
You meant 'book review', rather than 'book reviews'? I agree: book reviews, such as SusanG's, and others' actual book reviews should be tagged 'book review'. Diaries that are general discussions about books and what people are reading should be tagged 'books'. There have been at least two attempts to have a monthly book club discussion, which have the 'book club' tag, but this never seems to maintain traction. The book flurries and book chats diaries have their following(s), with the 'bookflurries: bookchat (31)' tag, which seems to be a winner, so I think we should leave this one stand.
  • campaign (301), campaigns (257), campaigning (79)

-Merge campaign into campaigns. Campaigning refers to working on a campaign? which would often be about a personal experience? which should be separate because this is a political blog and I think splitting is good for issues most important to the purpose of dK. -Halcyon

Agree --SarahLee 22:38, 15 May 2007 (PDT)
I'm trying to figure out what "campaign" means as distinct from the elections tags? I've generally run into "campaign" or "campaigns" in contexts where their meaning is really synonymous with the way we've been using "election" to mean "election campaign and everything else" (and thus ready for a "year elections" tag if it doesn't already have one). See, for example, this diary. On the other hand, there's this other diary where "campaigns" (in the plural) does seem appropriate. I think, in this case, I'd vote for the plural even if the singular has a slight numeric advantage; we've taken the underdog when it's a better choice. — Sardonyx 22:17, 6 June 2007 (PDT)
  • Debate (347), Debates (225) - keep separate, if singular is about one debate in particular and plural is about debates in general? Same for speech (154), speeches (31)
    update: We don't have uniformity re singular vs. plural. If we institute it here, don't we set the stage for additional confusion? Speech is ambiguous. How do distinguish between ordinary speech and formal speeches?

-By 'speech' do most uses actually mean any of these: free speech (391), freedom of speech (135), hate speech (151), rather than a speech?

I have been using debates but I had not rechecked those numbers in a while; debates was ahead when I made a note of it during 2006 election run-up so I've been wrong - I don't see the need for two 'debate' tags - because of the numbers, go with 'debate'
'speech' has the most use, so that is what the tag should be - for someone, generally a politician giving a speech; merge 'freedom of speech' into 'free speech'; 'hate speech' is a somewhat different discussion and I can see keeping it as a seperate tag. 'language' (166)falls somewhere in here as well. --SarahLee 22:38, 15 May 2007 (PDT)
'hate speech' is definitely an important tag, usually used for talk radio, Rush, Ann Coulter, Bill O, etc. I think most 'speech' tags may be another case of either lazy tagging or 'more is better', and, ideally, should be remapped to the appropriate 'free speech' or 'hate speech' when not used properly to denote an actual speech. -Halcyon 16 May 2007, 18:00 EDT
  • hybrid vehicles (70), hybrids (37) - preference: hybrid vehicles. For any hybrids tag referring to Bush's insane mention of human-animal hybrids in the 2006 SOTU speech, the tag human-animal hybrids should be used.

-There are a few diarists on the topic of alternative vehicles. They have their own flurry of variants and specific names of dozens of vehicles. I think we should pick two general terms such as 'hybrid vehicles' (since Prius, etc. are already in use), and 'alternative vehicles' for all other prototypes. -Halcyon

we also have 'cars' (77) and 'electric cars' (41), 'electric vehicles' (27), 'unmanned air vehicles' (1), 'vehicles' (31), 'vehicle' (5) - I don't like 'alternative vehicles' and think we should keep 'electric cars' and merge everything else into 'cars' and 'hybrid vehicles' ; Need to make sure that 'hybrid' is not referring to a hybrid plant? --SarahLee 22:38, 15 May 2007 (PDT)
We also have 'automobiles' (55), which should be remapped to 'cars'. The 'hybrids' (35) tag is used almost exclusively about cars, except for two manimal diaries. Joelado uses this tag in his tag cloud about what I refer to as alternative vehicles. The reason I like 'alternative vehicles' is because there are prototypes that are not electric or hybrid. They are hydrogen and other. 'alternative vehicles' covers them all, and 'hybrid vehicles' already exist and are in use, and there have been diaries specifically about them (such as about the Prius recall), without reference specifically to global warming, oil, etc. The term 'alternative vehicles' parallels 'alternative energy' (152) and 'alternative fuels' (52). -Halcyon 16 May 2007, 18:00 EDT

  • K Street (49), K Street Project (44) - are these distinct, or should they be merged?

-The Project specifically refers to Santorum's baby. Many of the 'K Street' diaries undoubtedly do too. But we also have lobbyists(319) and lobbying(117) which I recommend using instead of 'K Street'. -Halcyon

  • liar (87), liars (90)

-There's also lies(1059). I think 'liar' and 'liars' are both used as an editorial comment in most cases, and these tags should be eliminated. -Halcyon

  • page (35), pages (37), congressional pages (32)

-Are any of these not on a Mark Foley diary? Could these be a case of 'more is better'? Some people put in various key words as tags and this may be the case with these. 'Mark Foley' and/or 'Foleygate' would suffice, if so. -Halcyon

Agree - people looking for the subject matter are going to know to look for 'Mark Foley' - add 'Foleygate' and you have the scandal covered. If other politicians had wound up getting named/involved, then 'Foleygate' might have been too limiting, which is why I preferred 'pagegate' - but that hasn't happened. --SarahLee 22:38, 15 May 2007 (PDT)
  • pop culture (59), popular culture (30)
  • state legislature (39), state legislatures (73)

-I thought we recently decided to switch to the '(state name) legislature' format? This should be a project to go through these diaries and make appropriate changes. -Halcyon

My personal test is to imagine if it is a tag anyone would ever search on or bookmark; Since these are so specific to the interest of members of a particular state discussed in the diary, I think these two tags are way too broad to be of any help to anyone. That is partly why we went to 'state_name elections' - "state elections" was too broad. --SarahLee 22:38, 15 May 2007 (PDT)

-Halcyon, 15 May 2007, 13:48 EDT

Synonym Tags

The following lists are groups of tags with 30+ frequency that are related. For each group, we need to decide whether any tags should be renamed and retired. Listing the tags below does not imply I think they should be merged (in some cases I think they should be kept as is), it simply means I think they are similar enough to warrant some discussion.

I identified all these by browsing the Tagfinder. Current approximate tag frequencies are in parentheses. For some tag groups I have stated my preference, but I'd like feedback and discussion before posting any jobs on the cleanup jobs page. It's hard to undo a change that merges tags, so we should have clear consensus first. --Retrograde 10:04, 14 May 2007 (PDT)

Political labels:

  • support our troops (52), support the troops (126) - keep separate if referring to organization names, merge if they are just general terms.

Person, place, company, department and organization names:

  • Department of Homeland Security (62), DHS (144) - probably prefer DHS since it is more popular and the full name is a little long. The tag Homeland Security (469) should probably stay separate as often it is about the topic in general and the department.
  • Marianas (36), CNMI (123)
  • Martin Luther King Jr. (72), Martin Luther King (163) - probably all about the same person, although it's possible a few may be about MLK Sr. I'd prefer to keep the "Jr." even though the tag without it is currently more frequent.


  • wiretap (95), wiretaps (401), wiretapping (401) - prefer wiretapping for consistency.


  • book (55), books (419) - prefer books
  • campaign (301), campaigns (257), campaigning (79)
  • conspiracy theories (58), conspiracy theory (116)
  • Debate (347), Debates (225) - keep separate, if singular is about one debate in particular and plural is about debates in general? Same for speech (154), speeches (31)
    update: We don't have uniformity re singular vs. plural. If we institute it here, don't we set the stage for additional confusion? Speech is ambiguous. How do distinguish between ordinary speech and formal speeches?
  • K Street (49), K Street Project (44) - are these distinct, or should they be merged?
  • liar (87), liars (90)
  • page (35), pages (37), congressional pages (32)
  • pop culture (59), popular culture (30)
  • state legislature (39), state legislatures (73)

Since this is a long section, I'll delete the simpler cases from it as things get resolved. --Retrograde

from CB I'm fine with all your preferences. For the rest, I'd go with the one with the most already in use except for K Street - impossible to tell if they're the same topic without reading the diaries, although they likely are. Also... congressional pages seems clearer than either page or pages.

Removed tags that have been sent to cleanup page. — Sardonyx 17:39, 22 May 2007 (PDT); also 21:00, 24 July 2007 (PDT); Sardonyx

Queen Elizabeth tags

What is the proper tag for Queen Elizabeth? I've seen a few diaries about George Bush receiving her at the White House. Is this an exception to the "no titles" rule? And would we want to include the "II" to distinguish her from Queen Elizabeth I (in case we have any British history diaries hanging around)? Since the meeting took place here, not sure if we also need to add the "UK" tag.

Might be a good idea to catch these early...

--Cali Scribe 13:57, 7 May 2007 (PDT)

Just checked and saw 4 Queen Elizabeth, 3 Queen Elizabeth II and 5 Elizabeth II. Wikipedia uses Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom but that's a bit long for us. I'd keep the "II", happy with or without the "Queen" prefix. (retrograde)
I would go with Queen Elizabeth II - hers is not a title that might change over time. --SarahLee 06:06, 14 May 2007 (PDT)
I agree, hers might not, so Queen Elizabeth II makes sense. But what about Charles? Right now he's Prince Charles (and also the Prince of Wales, and the Duke of Rothesay and the Duke of Cornwall and..., you get the idea), but he will become King Charles the somenumber if he outlives his mom. The same with Prince William. Or should we just figure that Elizabeth will live another 20 years, past our window of interest in dKos tagging, and leave him as Prince Charles? --Centerfielder 05:01, 16 May 2007 (PDT)
Ah... you got me there. I think we can trust Elizabeth's title won't change, but I am now ameadiable to going with Elizabeth II for her. Have no idea about the best way to handle the Princes. Maybe one of our "real Librarian librarians" will pop in with a suggestion. --SarahLee 09:35, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

Cheers and Jeers

Sardonyx -- In Jotter's diary the other night you mentioned you were going to write up a job for this, and I mentioned I'd tackle it -- I need a break from the Bush misAdministration. I've already tackled a few -- the ones labeled "Cheers and Jeers 2003" and the generic "Cheers" (most of those I put into "community" as that's where they belonged, except for a couple of subsitute Cheers and Jeers that were done when BiPM was on vacation). Shall I continue? From what I gather from the discussion, we're just grouping them in "Cheers and Jeers", no dates, right?

Thanks muchly --

--Cali Scribe 15:30, 4 May 2007 (PDT)

Cali Scribe: keep on going if you want. I don't think any of these dated Cheers and Jeers exist in a vacuum; I think they're all additional tags beyond "Cheers and Jeers", so all you'll need to do is delete them. (If you don't want to do them all, let me know -- there are at least 350 left, and I can always put this job on the cleanup page.)
Sardonyx 12:28, 7 May 2007 (PDT)
UPDATE: -- 0 C&J tags remain as of 7 May 2007; this includes the C&J tags dated 10-04, 11-04 & 12-04, as well as the plain vanilla C&J --Cali Scribe 13:50, 7 May 2007 (PDT)

Election tags

Not sure who to contact about this so figured I'd stick it here.

I went over to the "Tagging tips [1]" page and found the following:

For election blogging, add the year, state and office. So the Colorado governor's race in 2006 is tagged: "2006, governor, Colorado". Also add the dKos-style abbreviation of the race (two digit state abbreviation and race). So a governor's race would be "CA-Gov", a Senate race "CA-Sen", and a congressional race would be "CA-06".

(emphasis mine)

Since we're now standardizing to "(year) elections" for the election tags, this should likely be modified, else we're never going to get ahead of the 2008 (and future) tags. (And since we had our first 2008 election diary in December of 2004 IIRC, we'll probably see our first "2012 elections" diary in December of 2008 (groan).) Perhaps one of the longterm Tag Librarians can pass the word along?

--Cali Scribe 10:30, 2 May 2007 (PDT)

I agree. What we really need to do (cough, cough) is rewrite the Tagging Tips, and have it be required reading before diarists Tag their diaries, including requiring the diarist to check for Approved Tags. - Halcyon, 15:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Wonder if it would be feasible for the Tagging Tips to come up on the actual diary page (as part of the instructions) instead of as a separate click that most folks won't bother doing? I only checked them because I was going to post the link -- but when I saw that instruction I was very leery about doing so. --Cali Scribe 14:04, 2 May 2007 (PDT)

I'll send a note off to ct to try and get the tagging tip changed to "2008 elections" and not "2008, elections", but I don't think tagging tips will go on the diary entry page -- it's prett jammed as it is. -- Centerfielder 04:56, 3 May 2007 (PDT)

- Thanks Centerfielder. Could you also ask that the database get cleaned up to get rid of the 947 orphan tags (attached to deleted diaries)? I've asked both ct (multiple times) and Hunter (once) with no response yet --SarahLee 09:56, 4 May 2007 (PDT)

Voter Fraud and Election Fraud

SarahLee and I had a discussion about the definitions, and need for separate Tags.

The U.S. attorneys scandal has revealed the stark distinction between the two terms. Unfortunately, the Republican noise machine has been successful at confusing many, including Daily Kos users as to which term to use for which acts with respect to the operation of elections. I define the two terms as follows:

Election Fraud: any action that interferes or tampers with the registration of voters, the ability of voters to vote on election day, the method by which votes are recorded or counted, such that the integrity of the election is in doubt, often resulting in a suppression of votes (lowered number of total votes, which is usually orchestrated by Republicans in a way that reduces Democratic votes; during Jim Crow, it was the Democrats who practiced voter suppression and election tampering, since freed slaves and their descendants voted for the ‘party of Lincoln’ in those days), or the 'flipping' of votes from one candidate to another (via various schemes that have been revealed by examination of paper ballots cast in Ohio in 2004, and testified to by voters on electronic voting machines, who observed their votes 'flipping'), or gross anomalies such as the 18,000 undervote in FL-13 in 2006, which defy credulity as merely a 'glitch' (given the ties to the Republican party of the voting machine manufacturers). This tag also includes robocalls, phone jamming, fliers telling people to 'vote on Wednesday', fliers mislabeling republicans as Democrats, voter-registration drives that result in the Democratic registrations being discarded, too few voting machines in selected precincts, lack of transparency in vote counts or recounts......etc.

Voter Fraud: is the intentional act of an individual voter to vote more than once, or in a district in which (s)he does not reside. It was used by Chicago's Mayor Daley to stuff ballot boxes, wherein his henchmen voted multiple times under the assumed names of deceased registered voters. It is possible that the well-known history of use of voter fraud by the Chicago Democratic machine is the inspiration for this Republican meme meant to raise outrage against Democrats, as a diversion from the technically sophisticated election fraud that the Republicans devised, to be implemented in the wake of passage of Bob Ney's Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

Real voter fraud is extremely rare today, see ProjectVote's The Politics of Voter Fraud, which states that: "fraudulent voting, or the intentional corruption of the voting process by voters, is extremely rare. Yet, false or exaggerated claims of fraudulent voting are commonly made in close electoral contests, and later cited by proponents of laws that restrict voting." The fact is that voter fraud today is a one-voter-at-a-time offense, and thus ridiculously unlikely to affect the outcome of an election. In almost every case of voter fraud in the past eight years, the underlying cause was a mistake, misunderstanding, or a simple error in filling out a voter registration form. The only intentional cases of voter fraud of which I am aware are Ann Coulter, who registered and voted in a precinct in which she does not reside, and Elizabeth Dole, who has not lived in North Carolina throughout the years in which she has represented the state as its Senator. The real intent of the Republican party in propelling the ‘voter fraud’ meme is to create plausibility and support for passage of legislation under the guise of preventing ‘voter fraud’, but which actually results in voter suppression, via means such as the Georgia Voter ID Law which would have disenfranchised mostly minority, poor and elderly voters who tend to vote Democratic. Another intent is to deflect attention away from the potential for tampering with the electronic voting process, whose operators are all Republicans. By implanting the ‘voter fraud’ meme in people’s minds through repetition in the media at election time, a subtle unspoken racism and disdain for the underclass is evoked, and attention is directed at individual voters, rather than the Republican party machine.

The exposure of the U.S. attorney purge has caused the Department of Justice to amplify its clarion call of 'voter fraud' as one of the stated reasons for requesting the resignations of David Iglesias and John McKay, to wit, the resistance of these two attorneys to prosecute voter fraud cases. The history of these two cases shows us how bogus the Republican 'voter fraud' meme really is:

John McKay was the U.S. attorney in Washington during the aftermath of the 2004 gubernatorial election in which the Democrat Christine Gregoire narrowly beat the Republican Dino Rossi, by fewer than 1,000 votes. After several recounts (electronic, then hand), Gregoire still won. It was at this point that the U.S. attorney, John McKay, was relentlessly pressured by local Republicans to create 'voter fraud' cases, as a last ditch Republican effort to throw out enough Democratic votes to overturn the election result. After investigating the charges, McKay declined to prosecute, because the evidence of voter fraud did not exist. Soon after, he was interviewed by Harriet Miers for a potential appointment to the bench. She criticized McKay for 'mishandling the recount’. He was not appointed to the bench, and he was asked to resign.

David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, who was pressured by Represetative Heather Wilson and Senator Pete Domenici to expedite an indictment which they hoped would damage Wilson’s Democratic challenger shortly before the election, also had been pressured to bring 'voter fraud' charges. After an extensive investigation into the charges (made by Republican insiders) Iglesias determined that there was not enough evidence to bring charges. He was forced to resign.

What's so silly about the Republican 'voter fraud' meme is that when you understand the details (which the average person doesn't) it's obvious that 'voter fraud' as it occurs today is so rare and fortuitous that it has no possible capability of influencing the outcome of an election. The entire concept is merely a PR project of Karl Rove's invention, to propel the spurious notion that Democrats tamper with elections. It is due to the power of the Republican Noise Machine that this term has embedded itself in the public consciousness as the term that comes to mind when elections are in dispute, rather than 'election fraud' which is more descriptive of intentional tampering with elections by those in positions of power, financial advantage, and influence, who can change the outcome of an election via the suppression or altering of large numbers of votes via various schemes, some of which may involve the programming of the electronic voting machines. It requires a lot of financial resources and personnel to tamper with an election. Most people disbelieve the possibility that such a conspiracy, involving more than just a few people, could possibly be pulled off without a leak, but the fact is that the Republican party has successfully purged all but the zealots, and intimidated the rest into compliance and silence, with the threat of having their future livelihoods destroyed. The case of the Ohio 2004 recount is a prime example of how such coercion works.

Most references to ‘voter fraud’ are solely part of the Republican party PR effort to deflect attention from real election fraud. So, how to determine appropriate usage of the ‘voter fraud’ tag? My opinion is that the ‘voter fraud’ tag be used for diaries which discuss, for example, the Ann Coulter or Elizabeth Dole cases of actual voter fraud; diaries which discuss prosecutions for actual or alleged voter fraud (which are probably, in every case, politically motivated by Republican prosecutors); diaries that discuss the use of the ‘voter fraud’ meme by the Republican party. Exceptions would be the diaries tagged ‘U.S. attorneys’ wherein ‘voter fraud’ is mentioned in passing as part of the contrived reason for firing an attorney. Halcyon, 7:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

You have made your case with me. I will act and tag accordingly. I just don't always count on the community at large to make fine distinctions so look towards the broadest possible identifier/tag --SarahLee 07:32, 30 April 2007 (PDT)

DC, not D.C. ; Washington DC v. Washington ; DC Madam

To clear up confusion over the convention of how to refer to the District of Columbia, the consensus is to go with "Washington DC" (or "washington dc"). No dots. The state of Washington is tagged "Washington".

BarbinMD attached 'D.C. Madam' to her frontpage diary about Randall Tobias. I've gone back and tagged "dc madam" to as many diaries as I could find about this story, which goes back to last year. Other tags associated with this story: 'Deborah Jeane Palfrey' (and variants on this name), 'Pamela Martin', 'Pamela Martin and Associates'.

While typing this entry I notice that I unconsciously used 'single quotes' on the wrong or unapproved forms of tags, and "double quotes" on the approved/consensus form. Might be a handy shorthand to disambiguate. FWIW.

Halcyon, 11:57, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I just removed the "D.C." (12) to "Washington DC" (116) portion of the cleanup job because it left the "DC" tags (84 of them) alone. If we're converting every mention of the District of Columbia (19) to "Washington DC", we should do them all at once. I was unaware of the consensus at the time I made this change -- was it posted somewhere? -- but the point still stands.
I feel obligated to bring up another issue before we proceed: can or should be District be separated from the City, even though they are contiguous? I don't know the governmental structure, but I've lived in a city where the city and township were contiguous, yet they had separate governmental structures. In this case, it's city and district. For example, the proposed congress member (and current delegate, even if she doesn't have a vote) is for the district, not the city: when discussing the election for same, the tag appears to be DC-AL, and rules say we ought to add state and House and election cycle, which would be "DC-AL, District of Columbia, House, 2008 elections" if this goes through. Using "Washington DC" doesn't make intuitive sense in this situation.
If we are going to standardize on "Washington" for the state and "Washington DC" for anything to do with the city or the district it's in, then we'll have two more jobs ahead of us:
  • going through all "Washington" tags and retagging those that refer to the nation's capital
  • changing all "Washington State" tags to "Washington"
Needless to say, the first of these jobs should be completed before the second is begun.
Sardonyx 22:17, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

OK, Sardonyx,

First we need to definitively decide on a convention for naming the two places. The long-standing convention, I thought, was to call the state 'Washington' and the capital of the United States 'Washington DC'. I'd guess the only reason people have been tagging 'Washington state' is because they want to be sure to distinguish from Washington DC, and there hasn't been any way to be sure what the Daily Kos tag protocol is, becuse there hasn't been one to date, and just about any variant tag can be found in the data base. Yes, I forgot about adding 'Washington' to the (84) existing 'DC' tags, which should also be done, if we decide to go ahead with standardizing all of these 'Washington' tags.

Washington DC is its own entity. It is not in a township nor is it in a state. It has a local government which is under the oversight of Congress. I see no conflict with using 'DC-AL' to designate the non-voting representative to the House. DC is the postal code, no? How many people in common usage actually refer to Washington DC as 'District of Columbia'? I lived in DC for several years, and only then did I start calling it 'DC'. All the years I lived in Baltimore we simply called it 'Washington'. I don't know what people in other parts of the country call it. I wonder what Washington state residents call Washington DC?

I think it would be safe to remove 'state' from the 'Washington state' tag, if we go with my suggested protocol. As for all diaries tagged 'Washington' it would require scanning each one to determine whether to add 'DC' to the tag. This problem will continue regardless, due to lazy taggers, and perhaps someone might check these tags from time to time. Halcyon 7:32 30April, 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Halcyon on all points here. Washington state is just "Washington" - same as every other state.
All references to the District of Columbia should be "Washington DC" and the election tag would be DC-AL When you look at the list below, you see that the community generally does not put the "dots" in "D.C." --SarahLee 07:29, 30 April 2007 (PDT)
Fine by me. I've added back the "D.C." job, and included "DC" and "District of Columbia". Does someone want to volunteer to look at the other D.C.- and DC-based tags? "DC Vote", for example, is the name of an organization, so I didn't change the one instance I came across; other instances of that tag may be more generic. – Sardonyx 10:38, 1 May 2007 (PDT)

d.c. circuit court of appeals (7)
d.c. madam (11)
d.c. press corps (1)
d.c. representation (1)
d.c. (12)
washington d.c. (28)

dc cocktail parties (1)
dc democrats (6)
dc dems (1)
go to dc (1)
invade dc (1)
dc (84)
dc march (1)
dc representation (1)
dc statehood (4)
dc vote (9)
dc voting rights (12)
dc insiders (1)

Update: Tags in the list above are reassigned. Circuit Court diaries are developing with separate tags for each one. I'll look to see where they are discussed. CalifSherry 5/12/07

dc circuit (1)

dc federation (1)
dc for democracy (6)

dc madam (4)

dc-al (1)

downsize dc (1)
This is an organization.

washington dc (116)

Karl Rove and Sheryl Crow Incident

I recommend these tags: "white house correspondents' association dinner" (59) and "2007", as well as "Karl Rove" and "Sheryl Crow" Halcyon, 17:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I would add "global warming" and not worry about the year tag since it is only an annual event and diaries come up in chronological order, making it easy to see what year you are talking about - but I don't care that much and it hurts nothing to add it. --SarahLee 15:00, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

Barbara and Barbara Bush

Did we ever come up with a way to distinguish between the grandmother and granddaughter "Barbara Bush"?

Here is what I remember:
* Changing the tags that refer to the elder would mean changing almost all of the existing tags. <
* There is the problem of them both also having the same middle name.
* "Jr." generally isn't used to refer to women.

What I don't remember is if we came to consensus on what to actually use. --SarahLee 11:56, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

I've gone around on this for a while. I think it makes sense to follow Wikipedia's lead and call the grandmother Barbara Bush and the granddaughter Barbara Pierce Bush. We also might want to think about creating our own disamabiguation pages as an aid to both dKosopedia and those looking for proper tags. -- Centerfielder 16:16, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

My mother and sister have the same name, and both are in 'who's who'. My mother had never used her middle initial. My sister uses the middle initial (which is the same as mother's). I suggest either the Wiki format or using 'P.' for granddaughter. --Halcyon, 17:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Makes sense to me to go with the P. for the younger. I would say "Barbara Pierce Bush" as in wikipedia, except for only using middle initials as required for most of the name tags here. Hate creating still another exception to the general rules - there are so many already.... --SarahLee 14:57, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

Common acronyms

Although acronym tags are discouraged, a number of tags (mainly company, government department and organization names) are far more common as acronyms than spelled out. It would be nice to have a section on the Tag Editors Workspace page (or a separate page) listing common accepted acronym tags and their full meaning, as well as acronym tags that should be spelled in full.

Here are some of the most popular acronyms (frequency 150 or more) that currently have less frequent synonym tags, proposed for cleanup. I've formatted it for easy copy to the cleanup jobs page; it can be deleted here if/when it ends up there. --Retrograde 11:58, 21 April 2007 (PDT)

Job: For each of the following, change the lesser-used tag to its much more common acronym, or vice versa if it is decided that the tag should be spelled out in full
Change "National Security Agency" (35) to NSA (1858) -- done (retrograde)
Change "Central Intelligence Agency" (8) to CIA (1281) -- done
Change "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (25) to WMD (602) -- done
Change "Project for the New American Century" (16) (and "for a New ...") to PNAC (248) -- Done
Change "Environmental Protection Agency" (9) to EPA (232) -- Done
Change "Food and Drug Administration" (3) to FDA (192) -- Done
Change "Internal Revenue Service" (6) to IRS (151) -- Done

On all of the above, I agree. I note that some of those are on our Completed tag cleanup pages. We have been through many of those tags before. My votes on the following put in bold or I have added a note where appropriate. --SarahLee 08:56, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

Here are some acronym tags where a popular favorite is not clear.
GLBT (209), LGBT (196)

These go back and forth, and are current 214 and 203 respectively. I feel very uncomfortable about giving males "primacy" in this (and I say this as a male). — Sardonyx 10:38, 1 May 2007 (PDT)

EU (73), European Union (45) -- done
WWII (66), World War II (88) -- Done
IDC (52), Intelligent Design Creationism (31)

Neither of those tags should stand. They should really be two different tags: "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism"

Update: RWNM has 41. Right Wing Noise Machine. Then there are

noise machine (10) republican noise machine (13) right wing noise machine (27) right-wing noise machine (9) rightwing noise machine (3) vast right wing noise machine (1)

I prefer propaganda (1234) right wing(239) industry (17). (Separate "industry" from it's modifiers and that number jumps.) What say you? -- CalifSherry 26 April 2007

AFA (46), American Family Association (46) -- done
WTC (42), World Trade Center (32) -- done
CO2 (38), Carbon Dioxide (27) -- done
PR (37), Public Relations (45) -- done
WWIII (37), World War III (46) -- cleanup job created

There has been no World War III so my personal choice would be to delete those tags; if others think they should remain, then go for the spelled out version.
I'd keep the tag: talking about a future World War is a regular topic, and numbering it is the obvious shorthand for most people. To be consistent, the long form is best. – Sardonyx 10:38, 1 May 2007 (PDT)

SUSA (33), SurveyUSA (48), Survey USA (17) -- done
SSCI (32), Senate Intelligence Committee (46), Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (6) -- done
LGF (31), Little Green Footballs (21) -- Done
IRV (31), Instant Runoff Voting (31) -- Done
TIA (29), Total Information Awareness (23) -- Done
EFF (29), Electronic Frontier Foundation (14) -- Done
UPFJ (20), United for Peace and Justice (10) -- Done
PDA (20), Progressive Democrats (21), Progressive Democrats of America (16)

the "Progressive Democrats" tags may not all refer to the PDA organization --SarahLee 08:56, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

And the winner! I have been checking the diaries on the alternative RNC emails and, despite my appending 'emailgate' to them in the past two days, the 'emailgate' term has not caught on. '' has been used as the Tag in the recently Recommended diaries about the RNC refusing to honor John Conyers' subpoena, and instead turning over the emails to the White House. (I predict that this will be the Constitutional Crisis that finally gains traction.)

Ergo: '' is the consensus Tag for the RNC alternative email server used by the White House/Bush Administration/Karl Rove, et. al.

Halcyon, 4/17/07 18:40 EDT

Election Tags Discussion

Update 25 April 2007 - I'm finding campaign slogan tags, e.g. Rick for Congress, and campaign website tags, e.g. They tend to accompany the full name of the candidate or elected, plus the state distrct tag. I find them redundant and am tempted to remove them. Any problems with that? -- CalifSherry

I'd say websites (or any URI in general) should not be tags, unless the website itself is an integral part of the story. So would not be a tag, but would be. -- Centerfielder 14:27, 26 April 2007 (PDT)

Moved this from the article page. --SarahLee 20:49, 14 April 2007 (PDT)

Update April 14, 2007 - While searching on 2008 from the tag data page yields many variations, all but a few have been scrubbed. What remains are
- 2008 Elections (4606) Question: if the data base is out of date, these numbers are approximate.
- 2008 Presidential Election (230)
- 2008 (429)
- Choose Our President 2008 (11) These contain a poll. Do we dub them a series? If so, do we separate 2008 from them, so we can use the name 4 yrs from now?
- YearlyKos 2008 (1)
- Calif Sherry

* The tag data accessed via the search tool is only a day old. The data is downloaded and new reports run every night. The problem we have is that when we delete tags from diaries, they stay in the database until ct runs a program to clean them out. Since he is working on the new DK4.0 he isn't real interested in doing that right now.
* Any and every other version of "election" tags should be changed to the standard "2008 elections" with the other identifiers added as individual tags. EX: "president", "House", "Senate", "OH-10", "CA-Gov", "ID-Sen", New York Elections (for state elections), Local elections, (for a city office)
* I would leave Choose Our President alone for now. See how it develops. Just make sure that the "2008 elections" tag is in there.
* YearlyKos 2008 has nothing to do with the elections. That is the standard tag template for all the Yearly Kos convention diaries. If you look at that diary, it is actually talking about next year's convention.
See also: [YearlyKos]

General Questions1

The following questions were posted on the article page and never responded to - moved here and responding so New Tag Editors/Librarians will have the benefit of them, even though CalifSherry probably no longer needs this info. --SarahLee 13:52, 14 April 2007 (PDT)

I've been doing a little tag clean-up and have a suggestion and a few questions. I work from the list of approved tags.

1. On a rare occasion, I come across a tag that is not on the approved list, but seems appropriate. I leave those alone. Is there a place or a need for me to report that tag? -CalifSherry, Feb 1 - 9:53

If a tag meaning the same thing exists on the Approve Tags list, then change it - sometimes you have to change one tag to 2 tags to get the same meaning. Otherwise, 9 times out of 10 it can be deleted. Remember, it :is the concept that the diary is about that tags should be recording. It is hard to imagine a concept that isn't on that page already. Questions about whether we need to add it to the Articles page here can be posted on this discussion page and especially with a new hot issue/scandal. If the tag becomes used enough times, it will make the next revision of the Approve Tags list. --SarahLee 13:52, 14 April 2007 (PDT)

2. I would find it helpful to separate proper names into a second approved list and imagine it would make it easier for diarists to utilize the recommended tags. -CalifSherry, Feb 1 - 9:53

Names are always acceptable provided they include both a first and last name and in cases like the George Bush guys, the middle initials. There are many names with only one or two entries, but which may become important at a later date - listing them all would create a very long list and a lot of work. Given that we now have the handy tag search tool, I don't think that is necessary - it is very easy to search and find the way the first name is being entered by the majority of Kossacks.
I guess I could remove all names from the list, like I do states and state name and district tags (OH-10, CT-Sen, etc.) from the list so more issues/concept tags could be on it. Will think about that. --SarahLee 13:52, 14 April 2007 (PDT)
Yes, a list of approved issue and concept tags is what I'm after. If, for instance, we want to encourage economy (1748) over economics (718), only the former would be listed. I'd also like to read an explanation of the utility of the several existing lists.

-- CalifSherry 8:56, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

3. A few days ago, I completed one of the small jobs: the Clinton tags. I noted the date and time in the dKosopedia page. Was that appropriate? Since folks will continue to use Clinton without the addition of Hillary, Bill, Chelsea or administration, I reckon this job will not go away. How soon will that list be updated? -CalifSherry, Feb 1 - 9:53

If you are talking about the jobs on the Quick Cleanup Jobs page it is both helpful and appropriate to note your updates. When we have time, someone moves completed jobs to the Completed Jobs page and Archives , so we still have the links to continue checking from time to time while making room for new jobs. --SarahLee 13:52, 14 April 2007 (PDT)

4. update: There are many tags ending in .com that occur fewer than 10 times. In that they are unique, do we treat them as proper nouns or as other rarely used tags?

Department of Justice

Issue: "Justice Department" has 118 entries, while "Department of Justice" has 95 and "DoJ" has 65. The former seems to win, but the latter two combined would win if the acronym was expanded. We need to pick one. I've been seeing "Department of Justice" more often during the scandal. — Sardonyx 11:22, 26 March 2007 (PDT)

I think that any time we can get away from the acronyms the better off we are. Justice Department now has 140; Department of Justice is up to 145 and DoJ has 82.
You know that no one is going to enter "Department of State"; it is always "State Department" - For consistency one would think it should be "Justice Department" EXCEPT: - "Department of Education" is used and not "education department"; No entries for "Department of the treasury" and only a few for "Treasury Department". "
"Department of Defense" has 69; "defense department" only 20; "DoD" has 97. If we combine Department of Defense with Defense Department is is just slightly less.
I guess my preference would be to go with the real name, "Department of...." and that would just be to keep from having to go look it up each time. Decision made by level of laziness.--SarahLee 07:29, 13 April 2007 (PDT)
UPDATE: Decisions made should be recorded on this page: Tag:government offices --SarahLee 08:21, 13 April 2007 (PDT)
Both "Department of Defense" and "Department of Justice" have been selected. These decisions have been recorded on the Tag:government offices page, and cleanup jobs have been created. — Sardonyx 12:51, 7 May 2007 (PDT)

Walter Reed Army Medical Center

Discussion in jotter's diary at

Stephanie Herseth aka Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth was married to former congressman Max Sandlin on 31 March 2007 and now goes by the name Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, though her name is still alphabetized under "H". She currently has 8 tags (I thought there would be more, but the vast majority of Herseth diaries from her 2004 special election predate tags) as "Stephanie Herseth".

Today, someone (properly) tagged a diary with "Stephanie Herseth Sandlin", the name she uses now.

Do we convert her old tags to a name she didn't have at the time but has now, convert any new tags to the pre-marriage name even though she doesn't use it any more, or maintain two separate tags for her?

Fortunately, whatever we decide, it won't take long to do. — Sardonyx 11:57, 16 April 2007 (PDT)

I also saw this and was wondering what to do - we certainly don't want two tags for the same person. I was waiting to see if anyone else had an opinion on it. I would change them all to the new name EXCEPT we need to establish a rule we will follow in the future for other women and I can foresee a possibility that it could happen with a woman who already had 200 or more tags assigned. Still I can also see a real disconnect happening if down the road, people start calling her "Stephanie Sandlin" leaving the "Herseth" out. I will ask others to chime in. --SarahLee 08:23, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

gas odor

I tagged three diaries today about the gas odor incident in New York City "gas odor" and "New York City", plus other appropriate tags. If further developments suggest a new moniker for this incident, I'll adjust accordingly. -Halcyon, 8 January 2006, 20:00 EST

Should 2007 be added as it was an event that happened this year? --SarahLee 19:36, 9 January 2007 (PST)

J. Michael McConnell

The tag for the new Director of National Intelligence nominee is J. Michael McConnell. This is how his name appears in his bio at Compudyne, in the NYT story announcing his appointment, and at defenselink. -Halcyon, 8 January 2006, 18:50 EST

Added that info here: Tag:politician#George_W._Bush_Administration --SarahLee 14:35, 14 April 2007 (PDT)

Rogue Editors

In my Top Comments diary on tagging Wednesday night, user ticket punch objected to the GOP tag starting in this thread. I thought, at the time, I'd quashed the idea.

It appears that ticket punch, or possibly someone else, has decided unilaterally to eliminate GOP as a tag. There were 1461 tags as of the morning of 3 January; as of this morning (8 January) there are only 971 GOP tags remaining. All tags back to 2 October 2006 have been deleted or changed. The Republican Party tag has grown from 310 to 683 in this time.

What do we do about Trusted Users who decide, unilaterally, to change tagging like this because they don't like a particular term—in other words, wishes to prescribe usage rather than follow usage? I think we're going to need to decide this now, as we get more public about this project and what we hope to accomplish.

More immediately, what can we do to stop this tag destruction? Can we get the ADMINs to determine who is doing this de-tagging, and take away their TU status?

Finally, is there any way to undo the damage? And how can we find out when trusted users are doing re-tagging for similar reasons? With 53K tags, we'll never simply notice.

Sardonyx, 8 January 2007, 09:31 (PST)

I note that GOP is down to 130; I figured he would give up, but apparently not. Since Republican Party means the same thing, I don't have that big a problem with this one. Slow but steady. Hope he also takes on all the other GOP type tags.

Tag Changers and Troll Diaries

When I have been in diaries where I can see people are actively changing tags, I go immediately to the contact form and report tag abuse to mcjoan or meteor blades. I provide the diary URL.

Tag abuse is a bannable offense.
People also need to be reminded that if they are going to add a "troll diary" tag, they are supposed to leave the existing tags in place. It is obvious to me that people are registering disagreement by eliminating all the other tags - and sometimes it is simply disagreement, not because it is actually a troll diary. I try to check that tag from time to time, and I add tags back if someone has deleted them all. Other Kossacks have the right to make that determination for themselves. A troll diary tag does tell others that some in the community considered it so, but content tags should not be eliminated.

Tag Librarians need to make sure our own opinions don't get in the way of the job.

Reported some tag abuse to MissLaura this am, because she had written me to find out how she could create better tags herself. During our email exchange, Halcyon sent me links to two diaries that had been tag abused. This is what she replied:
I just looked at the diaries in the email you forwarded, and that user has been taken care of - was a returned supertroll.
So, actually, if you ever see a tagging pattern like that again,
someone going back in years-old diaries and abusing tags, that's something to let us know
because it's probably the same person again.
(from MissLaura's email) --SarahLee 11:35, 22 April 2007 (PDT)

False Headlines

The media are headlining articles falsely, portraying Democrats in a negative manner, despite the content of the article showing the opposite to be tha case. Examples: ChiTrib: Bush talks peace, Democrats war, "House Dems Move to Increase Spending" -AP, USA Today & Gallup phony up another Bush poll. There is a campaign of intentional deception and ridicule. I'm adding 'false headline' to the false headline diaries. I'm adding 'hit piece' to diaries about articles that are hit pieces, or that discuss the authors of hit pieces, or that discuss hit piecing (?). 'media pranks' describes the "Where's Obama" screen shot, and mislabeling Barack Obama's photo as 'Osama bin Laden' and other examples where the screen graphics are incorrect in a way that is ridiculing/smearing/false toward Democrats.

Halcyon, 6 January 2007, 19:02 EST

I don't find "False Headlines" in the tag database so that one didn't take.
* hit piece only has 10 entries.
* media pranks has only 5 diaries.

On the other hand, I think that these existing tags cover the issue pretty well used alone or together (as separate tags) in a diary:
* media bias - 276 entries
* disinformation (87)
* smear (71)
* dirty tricks (187)
* Maybe the best one: propaganda (1206)
In most cases, I would use two tags: "media bias" and "propaganda" or "disinformation"
I am surprised that red herring (11) hasn't been used more. --SarahLee 14:19, 14 April 2007 (PDT)
I obviously need to check here more frequently. Hadn't noticed "False Headlines," but I've been using "propaganda" and "media bias." --CalifSherry 8:12, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

left blogosphere/right-wing bloggers

I just cleaned up all other versions of the above two Tags. I selected the above versions because they already had been used more.

Halcyon, 6 January, 2007, 11:27 EST

No links on these pages

Please do not make the words entered here as tags into links - too often when you go to copy them to pasted into a diary tag editor, you wind up clicking them and wasting time going to another page.

This is a workspace for tags and we need to be able to copy tags out quickly.

Someone can't use a mouse properly? It's easy enough to sweep out the tags and select them all without clicking any of them -- egmod
Sometimes you are trying to pick out one tag out of the middle of a series and when you are trying to get tags edited for 50 diaries a day, there is no need to have links accidently taking you away from what should be a simple copy and paste job. --SarahLee 22:24, 10 November 2006 (PST)

Re: diaries about ISPs blocking access to websites.

Right now I see most used:
conspiracy, censorship

But since this might increase do we need a more specific tag? --SarahLee 10:39, 25 October 2006 (PDT)

Green Tag

There are over 70 diaries with the tag "green" and there is a conflict with how that term is used.

For some it refers to members of the Green Party or the party itself. "Greens" is also used for discussion of members of the Green Party.

For others "green" is used as an environmental/ecology term.

How should we resolve this? --SarahLee 23:43, 17 December 2006 (PST)

Possible solution:

Green Party (118) = Green Party and it's members. State name is a separate tag, e.g., California, Green Party. Green (69) tag for enviros and enviro programs, policies, practices.

I try to stay away from tags that have to constantly be rechecked to see if they are correct all the way back to the beginning of time - you wind up having to start from scratch all the time. So "Green" for environmental type issues or policies doesn't make tagging logic to me,despite it being a common reference to "green buildings" "green living" etc. - we have a much used "environment" tag. And "global warming", "climate change", "energy," "sustainability" etc. for the more specific environment related issues. I do try to keep redundant tags out. That said, I certainly agree that references to the Green Party, should be that and since Democrats refers to members of the Democratic Party, then Greens (with the s) should be the reference to members of that party. But I don't have all the answers. [grin] --SarahLee 20:21, 25 February 2007 (PST)

Notes from an email to the listed Tag Librarians:

I have been trying to point people to the list of approved tags instead of the "All Tags" page, because that is way too big for most people to use efficiently and some of the tags listed there, like "bush", are bad tags.

With any luck, I will get that up to the 1000 most used tags this weekend.

I also suggest the people download Centerfielders All Tags text file so they can use that to search through themselves since it beats working through the "All Tags" page hands down. And even a dial up user can work with that quite easily.

I never delete full names used as tags one time - IF the spelling is correct and there is not already a common tag used to refer to that same person.

I DO delete/replace other single use tags if there is a more frequently used tag describing the same subject matter.

I always delete the "Cutsey" Tags and post a comment to the effect that tags are an indexing system, not a means of expressing creativity.

I often open a group of diaries on a subject and try to get the tags to conform across the diaries - allowing for different tags based on info presented in the individual diaries. I then list "common tags used" for those subjects on the Tag Editors Workspace page(s).

If the diary I am editing tags for is recent and the error a common mistake, I do post a comment about the changes made so that others can learn from the correction and 8 times out of 10 I will get a thanks in return. When they are older diaries I don’t bother since it is not likely the comment will ever be read.

STATE RACE Tags: In response to a question about state races, I just wrote to sardonyx::

" there doesn't seem to be a common tag format for state leg races. Since dKos is more a national race kind of thing, I've paid less attention to those personally. - I don't imagine there will be a lot of searches for individual state and senate races.

I would just make sure that the following are in the tags:

  1. - candidate names
  2. - the state is spelled out.
  3. - the 2008 elections tag is there (or whatever year the elections is in)
  4. - and then "state house" or "state senate" without worrying about the districts."

PRIMARIES Do we want to use " primary" alone (the most useage at this point) with the state name or "2008 primary" or "2008 primaries" which fits in with "2008 elections" better? Wandabee asks about this here: Tag:editor_portal#Primaries

I always suggest that people try to use tags from the most frequently used list. If the point of using tags is to index info so others can find it again, then those should be the tags the majority will consider for searches.

In Hunter's diary asking for suggestions for the new Daily Kos program, I did suggest a need for Boolean and date search functions for tags.

TAG Diaries I do think we need to post regular diaries about tagging and admit that I have been a bit shy about doing so myself without input from other editors.

--SarahLee 11:10, 16 December 2006 (PST)

Linking Templates

Thanks for your tips on linking to dKos tags in dkosopedia at Tag:editor portal, but it really isn't relevant to the work being done in that area - where we are trying to designate the approved tags and don't want any links. It is an important and useful tool for dkosopledia - just not relevant to what is happening on that page and the pages linked from it. --SarahLee 12:56, 12 November 2006 (PST) (copied from RobLa's talk page)

Please suggest an alternate location for it. Specifically, I'd like to make sure that tag users on Daily Kos can find it. I'm also trying to keep from creating yet another page, since there is already way too many pages per active editor here. -- RobLa 15:06, 12 November 2006 (PST)

Tag List

It drives me crazy that every time I want to "do the right thing" in adding tags, my only choice is to click on "All Tags", which apparently searches every diary ever posted. Is it possible to compile and post the tag list once a week, maybe on the dKosopedia, and then link to it from the "All Tags" link or FAQ? (Or perhaps there is such a place already?) This would be so much faster to use. Thank you.

-- AlanF 10:16, 2 June 2007 (PDT)

It drives me crazy as well - and when I was on dialup, I couldn't open that page in less than half and hour. That is why we have the List of approved tags which we recommend people use in diaries about tagging and tag correction comments. We also advertise the Tag Search Tool . Regretably, we have no control over the pages at Daily Kos and pleas to both Hunter and ct have fallen on deaf ears/emails. I have made the request to both a couple of times and not received any reply. The best we've been able to do is to include the links in our own diaries and comments and in the Tagging Guidelines. I pass the torch to others. --SarahLee 06:48, 3 June 2007 (PDT)
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. I'm sorry that Hunter and ct have been so unresponsive on this subject (and others). I'll send them a note as well, for what it's worth. -- AlanF 07:22, 3 June 2007 (PDT)
I saw that I could contact SusanG, so I did. She may be more responsive. Here's the note I sent her:

Susan, People who try to "do the right thing" by finding good tags to assign are currently being penalized. Clicking on "All Tags" to see which are the best tags takes something like 5 minutes (30 minutes on dialup, according to SarahLee). I wouldn't be surprised if that operation conducts a search on ALL tags ever used in ANY diary. Seems very inefficient, to say the least. Good alternatives already exist. There are the dKosopedia List of Approved Tags: and Tag Search Tool: They are mentioned in the FAQ, but they should also be accessible from the same place as the "All Tags" link. SarahLee says that "pleas to both Hunter and ct have fallen on deaf ears/emails" and that she has not received a reply from either, despite having made the request to both a couple of times. Could you please either act on this request or pass it to someone who will? I see you as the champion of the rank-and-file member here. Thank you so much! Alan (AlanF) -- AlanF 07:44, 3 June 2007 (PDT)


Federal bills

It looks like the predominant tag scheme for Federal House bills is "HR" + space + number (e.g., "HR 811"). There aren't examples of "H.R." + space + number, which leads me to believe that someone has cleaned them up. The dKosopedia naming scheme is "H.R." + space + number + session (e.g., "H.R. 811-110").

I can't find any examples of "H.Res", which should not be confused with "H.R." (which stands for "House of Representatives").

There is no such uniformity on the Senate side. There are plenty of examples of both "S." + space + number and "S" + space + number. The

If we can agree on standards, we should add them to the FAQ. --AlanF 13:33, 13 June 2007 (PDT)

We've gone with the no-space standard with periods (basically, dKosopedia, but with no space). This is the same whether House or Senate, legislation or resolution. So, H.R.676-109, H.Res.333-110, S.5-110, S.J.Res.15-109, H.Con.Res.47-110, etc. It seems to be the standard on Thomas, the Congressional database. All tags should now confirm to this standard, except for those in the House and Senate Legislation tags job that are awaiting attention on the Tag:cleanup_jobs page.
You're right; this should be added to the FAQ. I'll try to get to it this weekend. — Sardonyx 13:54, 2 September 2007 (PDT)

State bills

See, e.g., "HB XXX".

-- AlanF 13:33, 13 June 2007 (PDT)

Personal tools