When you (that is, you and not somebody else) suggest an edit to a tag wiki the counter on the suggested edits tab on the review page is increased by one. This seems to be wrong if the function of the counter is to inform of the number of edits you can act on. When you suggested an edit of a tag wiki then you cannot, and rightly so, review that very edit (when you enter the suggested edits page your suggested edit does not appear there).
16689
On the new History beta site I have the privilege to approve tag edits already but my own edits still go into the review queue. And the review dashboard displays a different number of pending edits depending on where I am: on  I see one pending edit, on  I see none. I am pretty sure that the pending edit being displayed is my own - I edited a tag wiki and that edit hasn't been approved yet. It shouldn't be counted no matter where I am.
67092
When you click on someone's profile tags, it shows a search of posts by that user on the selected tag. However, the tag description appears twice in the page and there's not much left for the actual content you want to see.      The image was taken from my profile. Also not sure why it shows me a user id instead of my username.
58019
Very funny: on the stats page for 'suggested edits', it says there is 1 user with 1 review so far today. However, the counter for 'reviews today' says there are 11. Similar issues exist in other review queues of other Stack Exchange sites, e.g. for first posts. . Checkout these stats to see it at work.  I would not be surprised if the counter has not been reset last night at the start of a new day ... smells like a bug (or yet another undocumented feature ...).
85615
When you click &quot;edit&quot; on a meta site as a non-edit-privileged user, the error message appears:  Suggested edits are not allowed on non-tag-wiki posts on meta sites.  Right as I was going to post this as a possible bug, I finally found  which says that per-site Metas don't have suggested edits by-design because it's &quot;not needed&quot;. However, I've been participating a lot over at  where there is a lot still to be figured out in terms of site guidelines.  The Meta is one of the most active I've seen and a lot of the questions are really trying to gather community-built suggestions.  So maybe more of those need to be Community Wiki, but it still brings me to ask why don't per-site-metas &quot;need&quot; suggested edits? Adding bounty: The more betas I participate in, the more I don't get this.
55310
When one earns reputation from making tag wiki edits, the activity drop-down, shown when hovering over one's username, just says +2 tag wiki. There is no indication of which tag wiki was edited, or whether it was a tag wiki or a tag wiki excerpt. This gets particularly silly and useless if one edited several tag wikis at the same time, filling the list with entries that just say tag wiki, tag wiki, tag wiki over and over.  Can the activity drop-down say [tagname] tag wiki instead? It links to the right tag wiki, so it knows which tag the suggested edit was for, but I have to click through or look at the status bar to see which tag it was.
62173
I only see this on sites where I don't have edit privileges, and only where there have been multiple revisions:        What exactly is this supposed to do?  Intuitively, I would expect it to change the text in the box to what it was at that revision, but it doesn't. And, if that's it, why only where I need to suggest edits?
95800
Prompted by , where a user (who happens to have edit permissions on the tag wiki) posted an FAQ as a question in hopes that people would use it to redirect common questions.  Is this an acceptable question for Stack Overflow? Or would it be more helpful if this were in the tag wiki, and we could mark questions as duplicates of the tag wiki?   Thoughts?
97795
Every now and then, I edit another user's question or answer and encounter something along the lines of the following in the post source: Help, I need this question solved with these things:&lt;br /&gt; &lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;Item1&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Item2&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;Item3&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;br /&gt;  Can you guys help me with this? Oh and check here also &lt;a href=&quot;vagueurl.com&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;  Thanks!  Of course, it works, and it renders properly on the question's page... But... it's a real pain to edit and keep the HTML formatting clean and valid. Furthermore users that are not known with HTML and want to edit a post, might have difficulty to do so. For most SU/SO/SF users it probably won't be too big a problem but I can imagine users from ,  or any other SE site being like &quot;What the hell is this?&quot; If you just stick witk  and at least use its full potential, you'll be using a standard that every user should be able to understand. It will also make the post structure a lot more clear. For example: Help, I need this question solved with these things:   - Item1  - Item2  - Item3  Can you guys help me with this? Oh and check here also [Here][4].  Thanks!    [1]: http://vagueurl.com  Honestly, I don't know why . I understand that not every tag that is allowed has a MarkDown replacement, but tags like the &lt;ul&gt;, &lt;li&gt;, &lt;h1/2/3&gt; and the &lt;br /&gt; should at least be discouraged. We could for example display a warning similar to the &quot;This question seems subjective and will most likely be closed as off-topic&quot; that is shown when certain tags are used. For example something like the following warning could be shown when the &lt;br /&gt; tag is detected:  You seem to be using the &quot;&lt;br /&gt;&quot; HTML tag to create a new line. Stack overflow uses  to format posts, please use a blank line to create a new paragraph or a double space &quot;  &quot; to create a new line. For more help, please visit our .  So, for the TL;DR people: Why HTML in posts should be discouraged in my opinion:  Standardized formatting will make post editing easier and more clear in structure. Standardized formatting prevents weird and invalid HTML. The MarkDown editor used by SE does not &quot;support&quot;/use HTML formatting to insert images/links. I'm not saying HTML usage should be banned, but rather that HTML is discouraged as much as possible.  What do you guys think?
104510
The tag wikis on a lot of Stack Exchange sites can be pretty abysmal at times. There are numerous instances of members , but even when it's not straight-up copypasta, the vast majority of tag wiki edit suggestions I see are from people who honestly don't &quot;get it&quot;. It doesn't help that these are named wiki, because everybody automatically associates that with Wikipedia and/or the kind of content that you would see on Wikipedia. At the very least, it would help to have better information on the editing page so that we're not constantly having to reject edits and refer people to the . I believe that the aforementioned guidelines were posted twice on the blog, although I can't remember the other occasion when it was posted. Specifically I'm thinking of this part:   Avoid generically defining the concept behind a tag, unless it is highly specialized. The “email” tag, for example, does not 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. Concentrate on what a tag means to your community. 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.   I think this is what people need to hear about tag wikis, not the advice that's actually on the edit page:  The tag wiki excerpt is a brief plain text introduction to the topic that the tag represents. It is shown at the top of tag question lists, and as a tooltip wherever the tag appears. Complete this first! The full tag wiki is a detailed introduction to the topic, suitable as a destination for those curious about it: [...]  The phrase introduction to the topic screams definition to me. I don't even think that the phrasing is technically correct; it's not an introduction to the topic, it's an introduction to the tag. I would so much rather see a condensed version of the guidelines on the blog than what's currently on that sidebar. Yes, I realize that the sidebar eventually goes into more detail about what should be in the full wiki (&quot;what questions should have this tag&quot;) but I think most people have stopped reading by then.  For instance, we just got the following 2 suggestions in rapid succession:  An oven is an appliance which produces heat in order to cook food. Coffee is a beverage which has a dark, acidic flavor and is prepared from the roasted seeds of the coffee plant.  Stack Overflow's excerpts are hardly much better:  PHP is a widely-used, general-purpose scripting language designed specifically for web development.  These aren't helpful to anyone - everybody on a cooking site knows what an oven is and what coffee is. Everybody on a programming site knows what PHP is. Worst of all, one of our experienced members approved these edits because, no doubt, the phrase &quot;tag wiki&quot; is horribly misleading and the &quot;real&quot; guidelines are buried in an off-site blog post.  I'm going to suggest the following alternative wording, but this is just an example - it would be great if someone with more talent at this could come up with something better:  What are Tag Wikis? The tag wiki excerpt explains which topics the tag represents. It is shown at the top of tag question lists, and as a tooltip wherever the tag appears. Complete this first! The full tag wiki provides detailed usage guidelines and useful references, suitable as a destination for those curious about it: ► what questions should have this tag? ► differences from other, similar tags ► which aspects are on/off-topic ► for highly-specialized tags, some basic definitions ► important links for learning more ► one reasonably sized page See .
17332
I've noticed that the reviewer stats in the review queue contain awkward uses of :        has approved $count edit suggestions and rejected $count edit suggestions and improved $count edit suggestions    This has always irked me but I never bothered to complain about it publicly til now. The wording should be changed to       has approved $count edit suggestions, rejected $count edit suggestions and improved $count edit suggestions    Or one of the better suggestions from   The discussion about whether there should be a  in the sentence is a separate one entirely, but I think it's unnatural and unreadable to string the ands together like they are.
2934
Today I tried editing the tags using "edit tag" option for 10K users.     Update a tag - > SAVED It didn't showed my name. After a refresh, it showed my name.   Below are the screenshots for clear explanation.    Is this the exact behavior?
105357
Possible Duplicate:          I just tried to edit the tags of  to add the  tag to it (since the feature is already present), but every time I submit the edit I get dumped back to the edit page again.  Is this a moderator only tag (i.e. only moderators can apply it? Does the same apply to the other  tags?
117266
When I want to edit a tag of a question I get following message:     Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.      We welcome all constructive edits, but please make them substantial. Avoid trivial, tiny one-letter edits unless absolutely necessary.   Now the question is: are tag edits (adding a needed tag to an under-untagged, replacing a mis-used tag) substantial enough?  For example the proc-tag-wiki is just about a Ruby feature called proc - but currenlty some questions about Oracle Pro*C (a embedded SQL preprocessor) or the Linux /proc filesystem are also tagged with proc. Btw, what tag should be used for /proc?  Say I come across a Pro*C Question which is tagged with proc - is a change to proc-sql considered substantial or not?
97528
Until recently (probably today) the "edit tags" link appeared (for 10k users who has inline editing) only when hovering the tags area.  However, now it's always visible:        Can this please be fixed? I don't think we need both "edit tags" and "edit" always visible.
35682
As , the retag privilege serves a lot more confusion and a lot less of its benefit due to the suggested edit system. It must be done away with. It will be done away with. ♪  In light of this decided course of action, we're going to need a new snack for the road between "Create Tags" at 300 reputation and "Established User" at 1000 reputation. We'd like your help in thinking about some ideas on what would be a nice privilege to sit at this level. Since we're... a bit dry on our end.  The primary guideline in deciding what kind of privilege to put here is acknowledging its position in the overall hierarchy of privileges. 500 reputation is an early-intermediate user, one who has started to really get the hang of the site and its function. It can be something that provides convenience in how they currently can act on the site, or it could be some new functionality that fits as an early ability (especially considering there's no new abilities until 2000 reputation's "Edit Everywhat" ability).  I look forward to hearing what creative ideas y'all can provide.
15890
I want to see the number of tag wiki that I edited till now. Also I want to see which are accepted and which are rejected with the detail of all those tags. How can I know that? Also I want to know the progress for Research Assisstant badge.
122486
I was reviewing a  and decided that while the edit was incorrect, there were things to improve about the post. So I clicked “Improve” and set about my business. When I tried to submit my edit, I got the following error message, telling me that the post had been edited in the meantime by the suggester:  User already edited the body of this post; your edit must be more substantive to override the current edit.  When I tried later on a tag wiki, I got the altogether unhelpful indication that “an error has occurred”, and again no way to do anything but cancel and lose my work. But refreshing the page brought me to the suggested edit page, showing the suggested edit as approved, with no trace of my editing. (Fortunately I'd saved my text on the side!) With a , I was marked as having reviewed the suggestion, with the indication “edit” — but there was otherwise no trace of my alleged edit. So, if you improve a suggested edit and it gets approved in the meantime, you get into a situation where  there is no link to the post; if you go back, you get to what you were doing before and lose your edit; if you reload the page as instructed, you lose your edit.  The bug here is that unless you take extra precautions such as copy-pasting your edit into an external editor, you will lose your work. Expected behavior Unlike normal edit conflicts, an edit made to a suggested edit is guaranteed to be a derivative of the suggested edit - so if that edit was approved and then an &quot;improved&quot; version is submitted, that &quot;improvement&quot; edit should be applied to the post (the helpful status indicated by the checkbox shouldn't affect anything though). When two different reviewers both opt to improve a suggested edit, a conflict is unavoidable - this should be resolved based on the size of the edit, as is the normal behavior.