<p>It is a good practice for the stackexchange communities to explain the tags by <em>how</em> they are used and not by <em>what</em> the specific term in the tag means.</p>
<p>See for instance the points 2 to 4 in the list in <a href="https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/03/24/redesigned-tags-page/">this blog post</a> from Jeff Atwood</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Tags are the de-facto map of allowed (and implicitly disallowed by omission) topics on your site. </p>
<p>...</p>
<ol start="2">
<li><p><strong>Avoid generically defining the concept behind a tag, unless it is highly specialized.</strong> The “email” tag, for example, does <em>not</em> need to explain what email is. I think we can safely assume most internet users know what email is; there’s no value in a boilerplate explanation of email to anyone.</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>Concentrate on what a tag means to your community.</strong> For “email” on Server Fault, mention the server aspects of email including POP3, SMTP, IMAP, and server software. For “email” on Super User, mention desktop email clients and explicitly exclude webmail, as that would be more appropriate for webapps.stackexchange.com.</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>Provide basic guidance on when to use the tag.</strong> In other words, <em>what kinds of questions should have this tag</em>? Tags only exist as ways of organizing questions, so if we don’t provide proper guidance on which questions need this tag, they won’t get tagged at all, rendering the tag excerpt moot. Think of it as a sales pitch: in a room full of tags screaming “pick me!”, what would convince a question asker to select your tag?</p>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a strong argument to extend the software related tags, explaining how they should be used, in the same style as has been done for <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/r" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;r&#39;" rel="tag">r</a>.</p>
