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? Thank you.

1 Answer 1


As far as the Stack Exchange framework is concerned, you can use just about anything for a tag, and philosophy sounds like a reasonable subject area.

However, the question volume for the classical-chinese tag is pretty low. Currently, there are 17 questions from the last six months. To me, that doesn't seem like enough questions to motivate more precise tags.

In short, you can use the tag, but I don't think we need it.

You must log in to answer this question.

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