This question is tagged with tag.

This tag has been created for the Joss Whedon's movie question (and it's also used for one more question regarding this movie), while the question about Michael Keaton's performance is regarding the 1993 Kenneth Branagh's movie.

is too long, so seems to be a good choice. However does that mean that we should change the original tag to as well?

  • In the end I decided to stick to what (from my observation) seems to be status quo, i.e. do not add the date to the tag that was first created, only to the ones created later, so in this case it's the Branagh's movie. I used much-ado-about-1993, which is crappy, but seems to be the best we can have. This approach allows to avoid making the Whedon's movie tag crappy as well, as Catija wrote below. I'm going to add the proper tag descriptions as well. Commented Oct 6, 2016 at 11:12

2 Answers 2


With the recent maximum tag length increase to 35 characters, this whole problem solves itself and I have created the tags and .


No, we should not make two crappy tags merely because one tag has to be made crappy due to tag length issues... that being said...

While we don't have consensus on how to award primary tags or what the rules should be for multiple media with the same title, the general decision is one of several options, with varying levels of support:

  • the version that gets asked about here first should have the un-dated tag

  • the first version to be produced should get the un-dated tag.

  • the most recent version to be produced should get the un-dated tag.

  • all versions get dated once a second version is added.

  • all film/TV titles get dated... period. (this has issues due to tag character limits as seen here)

The first three options all (as of right now) have negative scores. The last two have positive scores.

This implies that at the least, both should have dated tags... what would potentially be less crappy is & which could look like 12th and 93rd sequels but I still think is better than .

Since it's commonly referred to as "Much Ado" that would be another potential option for tagging shorthand but may go too far.

  • 2
    I was thinking about much-ado-about-nothing-93 as well, the problem with it is that it doesn't match the pattern we currently use. If we go this path we will end up with some tags using two digit dates and some using four digit dates, which in my opinion isn't very organised. Commented Apr 26, 2016 at 7:50
  • The two-digit years would have gotten confusing if anyone came along and started asking questions about the 1913 film. Commented Aug 11, 2017 at 2:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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