It seems to be an ongoing pattern that Apple regularly upgrades product designations by adding the letter "S" to the end of a product name. Thus, the iPhone 3G was succeeded by the iPhone 3GS; the iPhone 4 was followed by the iPhone 4S, and this week the iPhone 5S was announced as the upgrade from the iPhone 5.

Our site has product specific tags, and while I'm not convinced that is a good thing, many users are, and thus when a new product is launched, we frequently encounter the desire to create a tag for the new product.

The Stack Exchange tag system, in an attempt to block the creation of useless plural tags, prohibits users from creating a tag that matches a previous tag and has an S appended to it. You cannot create a tag if there is already a . This is a very good thing. But this check system to prevent plural tags is preventing users from creating very proper tags for newly announced products.

This has happened before and it just came up again.

Is there any way we could relax the anti-plural filter so non-moderator users of sufficient reputation could create appropriate tags on our site without requiring moderator intervention?

1 Answer 1


It wouldn't be advisable to relax a basic sanity check that works the vast, vast majority of the time. Like you said, most of the time this is a very good thing.

On the rare occasion where a tag like is needed, a moderator can create it. That's why we call them exception handlers. They can create tags like this.

  • That seems reasonable enough. I didn't know if 10K users could be allowed to do this also. The situation seems to arise once every two years; it's fairly predictable, but also, as you observe, rather rare.
    – Daniel Mod
    Commented Sep 13, 2013 at 15:12
  • 2
    I don't find our 10K users to be less sane than our moderators.
    – Daniel Mod
    Commented Sep 13, 2013 at 15:13
  • 2
    If I had my way, the line between moderator and highly-experienced user would be rather blurry. But under our current structure, I think this rarely-needed ability falls nicely in the "exception handler" court... without unnecessarily over-complicating the understanding of who can do what. Commented Sep 13, 2013 at 15:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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