The tag identification-request is completely redundant. And, the way it's excerpt is written, it can be used with way too many questions.

A tag, which is redundant as well as not being related to Hinduism at all, is being tagged with that many questions, is totally unacceptable.

Use this tag for questions regarding story identification, verse identification from scriptures and image identification of Hindu God, goddesses and characters from Hindu mythology.

  • Use this tag for questions regarding story identification

    That means for questions like "What is the story of..?" and there are a plenty of questions asked like that. Anyways, for such questions we have the mythology tag. Having the identification-request does not add any value to anything really. Or for questions like "In which scripture is this story found?" --then for them we have the scripture and mythology tags.

  • Verse identification from scriptures

    That means for questions like one of my own questions " Which scripture is the source of the verse janmana jayate sudrah...?. then, for such questions we already have the scripture and the verse tags. The tag in question is again redundant as it is completely useless and it adds no value after the scripture and verse tags (which are important tags for Hinduism-related discussion unlike the tag being discussed) are added.

  • Image identification of Hindu God, goddesses and characters from Hindu mythology.

    For this purpose only it can be used. Although not much useful, still this is the only kind of questions where the tag should/can be used.

Therefore, my proposal here is either kill the tag because it is not even related to Hinduism in any way and it is redundant. Or, if that's not possible, limit it's usage as suggested.

Also, rename it to something like image-identification.


The tag may be existing before, but it's description was created only recently around October, 2017. And, my problem is with this description. The tag is currently used rampantly only because the way it is described now.


Making my point more clear:

The I-R tag is created based on the fact that "we are trying to identify something in somewhere" (which will be part of almost all questions understandably) but it completely ignores the fact what we are trying to identify. Which is what we should be focusing on and which is what the question is "about" or "related to".

Tags for what we are trying to identify - e.g verses in scriptures, stories found in scriptures - are what should be our focus on at Hinduism.SE and not on the fact that we are trying to identify .

And, for those kinds of situations, suitable tags are already present (e.g - verse, scripture, mythology etc etc).

That's exactly how the I-R tag is redundant and artificial.

So, what we are trying to identify - based on that, the tags of should be chosen. And, it should be present in Tag's body/name and not only in the description/excerpt. So, Tag's name itself should clearly indicate what we are trying to find , whether it's a verse or a story or whatever.

It should not simply suggest that it is a request for identifying something.

But right now it is only indicating that we are trying to identify something and that it is also a request. Now, how is that useful and not redundant?

Image-identification, on the other hand, is quite clear in that aspect.


Bottom line is here the I-R tag's name is not at all indicating what the question is about. Rather it is indicating what the asker's action is ( viz - a request to identify something).

Tags should be chosen based on what topics of Hinduism, the question is about and not on a user action. For example, we can't have a tag called asking-questions on the Main site.

| |
  • 1
    Tag for scriptural-references sounds good. – Pandya Mar 23 '18 at 11:52
  • @Pandya But that is another proposal. First we need change the tag description for this tag? – Rickross Mar 23 '18 at 14:40
  • 3
    @Rickross I also feel that indentification-request should be limited to image-identification only; one if we have a tag like scriptural-reference, we can have more clear idea. I'll try to add one answer here... – Pandya Mar 25 '18 at 8:49
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – The Destroyer Nov 17 '18 at 10:50

Yes, I think tag like would be fine for questions looking for sources from scriptures.

And talking about , it was originally created for image identification and extended for story and verse identification later. I also don't feel it much suitable for looking for scriptural-referance of stories or verses. So, we should limit its usage for image identification i.e probably renaming to .

If we get enough consensus on , we can implement it for the questions looking for scriptural sources, correcting/replacing or when necessary.

| |
  • 2
    What should we vote on? There are two things proposed in this single answer. 1) Scriptural reference. 2) Limiting ID for only image and not for verse and stories. Now, there is no problem with using ID tag for verse identification. The wiki is clear that iff we have a verse, this can be used. Other wise it is not needed. So, limiting to only image is not necessary. Scriptural reference is also a good idea but these days we are getting many lame questions with scriptural reference in the body or title. – Sarvabhouma Mar 25 '18 at 17:18
  • "And talking about identification-request, it was originally created for image identification and extended for story and verse identification later. I also don't feel it much suitable for looking for scriptural-referance of stories or verses. So, we should limit its usage for image identification." Agree on this part.. also i don't think scriptural reference is needed.. although that is another discussion.. but right now we need to change the tag description of the currently discussed tag to what it was earlier. – Rickross Mar 26 '18 at 5:27
  • 1
    If it was originally created only for image search then it was a wrong notion. Later it was rightly corrected for verse/story identification. In my view this tag is very objective & hence already in limited use. Also "limiting the use" is not a good answer, bcoz it doesn't really do anything. See this answer, in which an option also suggests to "limiting the use" of "scriptures" tag. Such sentences are crowd pullers, but what's the practicality? @Rickross basically you agree that the tag should not be deleted. I agree it's a good solution! – iammilind Mar 26 '18 at 6:56
  • Where to vote ? – TheLittleNaruto Nov 18 '18 at 4:22
  • There is no voting or poll @TheLittleNaruto Just give your feedback in moderation room. Polls are not Stack Exchange model. That gives rise to blind voting. – Sarvabhouma Nov 18 '18 at 9:52
  • @Sarva Thanks, I'll give my feedback in moderation room. – TheLittleNaruto Nov 18 '18 at 10:09

is a very important and independent tag. It should neither be deleted nor be merged.

  • Where in Gita Krishna assumes the universal form?
  • Where in Mahabharata, lord Hanuman and Bhima met?

The Qn-s like above would look incomplete without this tag. In fact, this is one of the most accurately trivial and straightforward tags.

For example, when someone has an image but doesn't know which website it belongs, one uses google image search, similarly, if someone has contents and want to search the source in Hinduism, then this tag is useful.

Like any other tags, this tag also should be used judiciously. It should be used when one has a verse/story/image and optionally the source as well, where it may belong.

On a side note, this tag is not comparable with , which is rather broader & subjective tag. People may not be interested in someone getting or not getting gold badge in . The problem is, once someone strikes a gold badge, out of sympathy the users may not remove that tag. Like how it happened in the case of mythology tag.

| |
  • 2
    Every Q is a kind of an identification request then.. "Which mantra to use.." Where is this story found?..."Which scripture is the source of this verse?"... "Which scriptures allow Brahmin eating meat?"... etc etc etc...all kinds of Qs are to be tagged with it as per ur logic..But for all these Qs i mentioned we already have tags..and it is redundant that's how.. the tag description is needed to be changed. – Rickross Mar 22 '18 at 5:20
  • 2
    We should tag it to this too as per ur logic..because it is also asking us to identify the time when a certain practice have started.. even this coz this is also asking for identifying the time when a particular war had started..so i like i said as per ur argument it can be tagged with virtually every Qs because all of them will ask us to identify something or the other. – Rickross Mar 22 '18 at 5:26
  • 2
    For ur 1st Q Gita and Krishna are valid tags..may be Arjuna and Mahabharata too..all other tags are redundant.. and for ur 2nd Q Bhima, MB and Hanuman are the correct tags.. since it involves a story so according to some mythology should be added too – Rickross Mar 22 '18 at 5:29
  • 3
    @Rickross The example you have taken is wrong. I don't know whether you have read the wiki or not. It clearly says it for finding sources only. It is not at all applicable for the questions you have said like "Mantras to use ", "Scriptures allowing Brahmin eating meat". Only applicable questions are "What is the source of this verse ans story." Scripture is about scriptures. If someone asks about scriptural reference about something, then the question is about something only not the scriptures itself. The tag description is about ID tag is clear.Why is adding a wiki problem to you? – Sarvabhouma Mar 22 '18 at 5:39
  • 3
    @Rickross, not all of your examples are valid for the tag "identification-request". One needs to have a verse/story and preferably the source/scripture to be able to use this tag for identification. "Which Mantra to use..." -- it's asking for choice and not about specific mantra. "Which scriptures allow Brahmin..." -- It's asking about sources itself and not about the verse in a given source. "Which scripture is the source of this verse?" -- Yes, this is valid for this tag. It seems that by referring "as per your logic", you are misinterpreting the tag-info. Hope that clears your doubt. – iammilind Mar 22 '18 at 6:09
  • you are misinterpreting the tag-info-- you are taking the tag info as what? gospel? i am disputing that only... it should be narrowed down.. because for those those situations we already have valid Hinduism tags.. if someone updates tag description in a way incorporating all sort of identifications what will do then? still say that it is valid to do so as per tag description? also i have 2 proposals..u have only said the tag should not be deleted.. my main proposal is changing the tag description.@iammilind – Rickross Mar 22 '18 at 6:59
  • the I-R tag is not related to Hinduism and is also dependent on Scriptures because verses, stories are eventually to be found in the scriptures.. so it's usage must be limited.. that it mite not be deleted can be understood because it has an utility for image identification posts for example @iammilind – Rickross Mar 22 '18 at 7:03

I vote we rename it to what-is-this so it is easy for users to find. I would never have known about the tag had I not read this question. How what-is-this should be used is clearer than identification-request: the questioner has as artifact, but does not know something about it.

| |
  • 2
    In that case you may sugest to make it synonymous instead of renaming the tag. Like how you didn't know about "identification-request", many will not know "what-is-this". – iammilind Mar 23 '18 at 2:34
  • Good idea! I didn't know about such a feature – Rubellite Yakṣī Mar 23 '18 at 2:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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