I think that some questions like this recent one are not just about translation, because translating classical Chinese, especially philosophy texts, requires a more specialized expertise than translating grammar book examples.
So now that I mentioned classical Chinese, the question can be reworded as: is the
classical-chinese tag enough to cover questions that involve philosophy texts?
- philosophy is a broad enough topic, and requires an even more specialized kind of knowledge. It's not enough to know what particles like 也 and 乎 mean in classical Chinese to understand some of the nuances
- it would improve the discoverability of some questions
What would be tagged
- questions that involve usage of terms in philosophy classics (Dao De Jing, Yi Jing, Confucius in general, Zhuangzi, Mengzi, etc.). Example: this, this, this
- questions that involve broader meaning or meaning-in-context, where the context is related to the above. Example: this, this, this
- questions that ask about famous commenters or translators, like this
- questions about recent or modern Chinese philosophy, but I don't have examples here.
What do you think? Is this redundant, and already covered by the warm embrace of the
classical-chinese tag? Or is this warranted?