I would use it only if asking about a body of work about the director, as opposed to a single film.
Mmm yes, though sometimes it's really not that black and white. The question may start off innocent but when the answers come in the original author might realise the film question he had was a unique work trait of the director (that's just an example).
"Why is Orson Welles considered such a groundbreaking director?"
"Who or what is Alan Smithee?" - side note, really should add a question about this :)
Why is Kill Bill considered Tarantino's "fourth film"?
The first and third questions are hecka opinionated but hey ¯_(ツ)_/¯
This is a better example
How much was Ridley Scott actually influenced on Alien?
Why is the bride's name bleeped in Kill Bill Vol 1?
Here is a bad example
How was the whipping scene accomplished in Django Unchained?
Whipping scene will be a combination of many people on set not necessarily just Quentin Tarantino
They are about movies directed by Ridley Scott, but that doesn't make them questions about Ridley Scott. We haven't tagged them science-fiction, harrison-ford and hampton-fancher either.
This is a hard cut and dry way to put it :/
The Ridley Scott tag doesn't really increase/decrease the question content
There are currently 5 questions in total for the Ridley Scott tag, this question in no way detracts from whatever was intended to be content shared amongst those 5 questions
So those are my reasons for being neutral about the tag (thus why I never removed it when the editor put in after I answered https://movies.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/482)
Now to get to why it's good
Search, because well yeah. If I'm in Google I can type director + scene. Maybe the scene (not this one in particular) is known well because of the director's work and that's how users normally search for it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, I really don't see the need for such an overarching guideline.
Content, the accepted answer shows the intention set by Ridley,
Wired: It was never on paper that Deckard is a replicant.
Scott:It was, actually. That's the whole point of Gaff, the guy who makes origami and leaves little matchstick figures around. He doesn't like Deckard, and we don't really know why. If you take for granted for a moment that, let's say, Deckard is a Nexus 7 -http://archive.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/15-10/ff_bladerunner?currentPage=all
Actually both answers mention Ridley for the direction he took. So overall the question and answer combined does in fact talk about Ridley Scott.
If you also watch the timeline
- Question - Dec 2011
- Answer 1 and 2 - Dec 2011
- Suggested Edit tag - Jun 8 '12 at 19:12
It's clear the editor saw the two answers and figured it appropriate to tag the question [ridley-scott] to take in the fact that both answers mention the director's direction on Deckard's behaviour.
I actually didn't really want to write anything, but for the sake of Napoleon Wilson♦ and DA. to stop commenting on a question How do the differences between the replicants and Deckard evolve in Blade Runner? I wrote about 4 years ago way before this meta decision even existed (heck I didn't even tag my question with director tag, someone else did)
There are a couple meta things wrong here too
* How did this question get set as [faq] when the user who answered ended with
Let's keep the discussion going. Any more answers/comments would be very welcome :)
And some voters agreed with this comment
The overwhelming answer appears to be IDK LULZ
Which to me seems the vote is undecided.
* Where was the voting event for this question like others? Should plot-inconsistency be scrapped in favour of plot-explanation? [**VOTING CLOSED**] (I don't know if this community stopped that)
The list of issues go on past my time to invest in this currently. As a community you should resolve this though, this seems very draconian, I'd expect this in Stack Overflow but not a SE 2.0 site; passing a rule single handed.
Overall I don't care, I haven't been here in years, but some people who are invested in this community might.