Post History

> So what is the proposed ontology for the Languages & Linguistics site? I foresee a category for each language and then, eventually, subcategories for the rest.

Just so we're on the same page, we don't have subcategories. Categories are what are listed [here](https://languages.codidact.com/categories), i.e. Q&A, Resources, and Meta. I assume by categories, you mean having "special" top level[^1] tags which are formatted differently like the top-level [discussion], [feature-request], etc. tags, and then having sub-tags of those. However, I'll first just address why language categories won't work.

If we did have categories for each language, this would pose a serious UI issue. As noted in comments on the [original site proposal](https://meta.codidact.com/questions/276701#answer-276704), creating a category for every language will make us quickly run out of space.

> My primary concern here is that if we end up with 10+ categories, that poses both UI and UX challenges we did not plan for when designing categories. — Monica Cellio

Further, we also allow cross-language comparison questions, such as *[Is Swedish more conservative than Danish and Norwegians?](https://languages.codidact.com/questions/278240)*, where it wouldn't fit in one language category anyway. And then we have questions about *linguistics* which may or may not be about specific languages, such as *[Why is linguistics limited in how much it can look back in time?](https://languages.codidact.com/questions/277115)*. At some point, having multiple categories becomes more confusing than helpful.

-----

On the other hand, I fully support the idea of having language tags have a special appearance/color[^2]. Those tags are what make Languages & Linguistics, well, *Languages* & Linguistics, after all. 

> But should we have general tags like grammar, pronunciation and so on? Should others like number be part of a bigger category, so we just have more general categories?

(I am continuing to assume you mean top level tags, not categories.)

My rule of thumb for putting a tag as a sub-tag is "If you ask about \<tag>, are you also asking about \<other tag>?"[^3] For example, if you ask about "Mandarin" are you also asking about "Chinese"? Yes, so [Mandarin] is a sub-tag of [Chinese].

By this criteria, what sort of tag would [number] be under? I can't really think of any tag that is 1. generic enough to encompass all usages of the [number] tag and 2. is not so generic that it isn't useless.

More to the point though, sub-tags are tags; there is no functional difference between them and top-level tags. Whether or not we decide to put [grammar], [pronunciation], or [number] under another more generic tag, they will still function exactly the same, so asking whether they should be under a more general tag is kind of moot; if there ends up being one, we can put them under it, but there's no reason to contrive one for the sake of creating a tag structure that doesn't do anything.

-----

Ok, now that you've read (or skipped) that slog, what *is* the proposed ontology for the Languages & Linguistics community? The answer: We never (formally) decided on one. We started with Q&A and Meta (Resources came later), and just let the tag set grow to fit new questions.

And, speaking personally, I believe that this is likely the best option. If we find a problem with the tag hierarchy, we can always change it, so I think it's best to let it grow and structure itself naturally.

[^1]: That is, tags without a parent, AKA orphan tags.
[^2]: I'd advocate for green, the same color as the site.
[^3]: Or the other way around, "If you search for \<tag>, do you also want everything tagged with \<subtag>?"