Talk:Tag (metadata)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Microformats

Tag (metadata) is part of, or of interest to, WikiProject Microformats, which encourages the deployment of microformats in Wikipedia, and documents them in the article space. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.MicroformatsWikipedia:WikiProject MicroformatsTemplate:WikiProject MicroformatsMicroformats

Archives

Archive 1

For a proposal to allow Tagging on Wikipeida, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats#MediaWiki issues

favorite and favorite

I noticed a spelling error in the Hash Tag section. I changed the spelling 'favorite' (incorrect) to 'favourite' (correct)

Facebook Tags

I think that Facebook should be added to the "popular websites that use tags" section. Not only is facebook a large website, but it's photo tagging feature is the first of it's kind (as far as I know, but I could be wrong.). I propose adding the following entry (please, any input would be appreciated)

Facebook – A social networking website that allows users to tag their friends in photos. Tagged friends will have their name display if you hold the mouse over their image, allowing for easy viewing of pictures of a specfic person, as opposed to photos taken by a specific person.

DaRkAgE7 _[Talk] 06:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd case since Facebook uses the term "tagging" in a different way from what tagging means in Flickr, Delicious, YouTube, etc. - Facebook's tags are nothing to do with classification, just about identifying the people in pictures. We should probably note it in the article somehow though. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who on earth said tags were, first and foremost, for classification ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.112.181 (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision on September 21

Hi everybody! I just went through and changed most of the article (I'd worked on it offline). I'm wary of making such major changes unilaterally, especially since I'm somewhat biased, so please discuss if I went too far astray on any point. One issue is that I didn't fully address the concerns in the "History" section above — this is tricky and I need to find more decent citations for the history of tagging. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, you can find a March 2002 reference to me using tags at http://web.archive.org/web/20020525043925/http://muxway.org/ (note the link in the tags, eg "obsess" is to /index.cgi?tag=obsess, for example.) While keywords are not new, I believe that tagging is a larger concept than just assigning keywords to things, however - I feel that it also includes the retrieval of the set of used terms/keywords/whatever upon view of the items. Additionally, I am reasonably sure that I named this. JoshuaSchachter (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchical tags

Wikipedia's categorization system is similar to a tagging system, except it also allows hierarchies, in which tags are given tags. This should be mentioned. 71.167.63.236 (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter whether those are tags or categories or whatever, we probably don't want to mention Wikipedia in the article; see Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hash tags

That subsection is not much use, since it tells us that Twitter (etc) messages can use hashtags (space in the subsection title; no space in the text: why?) but doesn't explain whether or how they differ from other types of tag. Loganberry (Talk) 01:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something on the origin of hashtags would also be good. A potential reference for expansion (if it's seen as reliable) would be the Twitter help page. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It would indeed. Reading currently it appears that hash tags did not exist before twitter, and of course Google is no help (it just finds twitter as well). Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Current Wikipedia coverage on hashtags in this article is helpful and good. However, there's more to say. Hashtags could justifiably be broken out into its own article after more content is added. FYI, I'm currently using a hashtag to mark an #issue for resolution in MS Word documents that I've been writing and/or reviewing. Itohacs 13:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itohacs (talk • contribs)

Expanded tags

This text was added to the article today:

An expanded tag is a user-generated tag that captures more than conventional keywords, they describe some additional aspect of a data object. "Jumper 2.0 Tags the Enterprise". John Udell. 17 April 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Text "Amazines" ignored (help) The expanded tag field takes the basic premise of tagging beyond just web pages to capture knowledge about structured and semi-structured data. It was pioneered by the Jumper 2.0 platform which collects expanded tags and stores them in a tag profile."Jumper Networks Press Release Jumper 2.0 Released under the GPL" (PDF). Jumper Networks, Inc. 26 March 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) The expanded tag fields allow users to input more than keyword knowledge, they can categorize the data, provide definitions, descriptions, annotations, add comments and notes to the data, capture the system metadata, ontologies and taxonomies, and much more.

It's only cited with two press releases, which is probably not enough to justify putting it in the article. It should have citations in reliable sources to show that it's not just a usage coined by one company. There has also been a lot of wiki activity supporting information about Jumper 2.0 recently (see the histories of Jumper 2.0 and Enterprise bookmarking), and I suspect conflict of interest, but I haven't been able to figure that out yet. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded this with two other references one from the Journal of Information Science and one from the Business Intelligence Journal. Metadata is "data about data" it is any information that further defines another object of information. From the research it is clearly evident that bookmarking tags are both "tags" and "metadata". With the enormous popularity of bookmarking it seems relevant to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbasher (talk • contribs) 02:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the phrase "expanded tag" is not in common use, and none of the three citations for that paragraph mention that phrase, as far as I can tell. In other words, both the Journal of Information Science and Business Intelligence Journal articles are good references for this topic, but they don't serve as verification for the the paragraph that you added. Non-notable, unverified neologisms don't belong in the article. Still, I agree that tags on bookmarks are relevant to this article; the "History and context" section mentions bookmarking. (Note that these comments are not about my removal of the "see also" link to enterprise bookmarking — I believe that link is not very important to this article, which is why I removed it, but I don't think it hurts the article so I don't mind leaving it for now.) Also, are you connected to Jumper 2.0 in any way? I have a potential conflict of interest because I work for Delicious, so I feel comfortable editing this article only because I disclose my affiliations on my user page and have read the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it for now, pending discussion and per the points above. Prodego ^talk 03:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]