Do we really need the [vim] tag?

Question

Theoretically, vim is supposed to be used to specify that the question is specific to the Vim, that is, Vi IMproved by Bram Moolenaar.

However, it appears that this is rarely the case in practice, and I don't think it will be the case in the future either.

Almost all questions tagged vim are not actually specific to Vim itself, and new users shouldn't be expected to know the exact usage guidelines that are rigidly expected.

So, a proposal: Burninate and blacklist vim. Nothing good can come of it.

(Secondary proposal: Possibly create a new tag vanilla-vim or something along those lines, to signify questions that are indeed specific to only Vim, such as What is Neovim? How is it different from Vim? And why should I care?.)

Answer 1

There've been a couple of other discussions on this:

• Should we have separate tags [vi] and [vim]?
• Should questions and answers assume the use of Vim?

It's becoming apparent that neither vi nor vim is likely to be used at all consistently here. Meanwhile, there is considerable value in encouraging folks to use tags that reflect the platform they're using, in cases where this is relevant - having tags that correspond to broad families of editors thwarts this goal. I think yo' said it best:

Having experience from the TeX - LaTeX site, I would suggest not: the B.J.'s original should get a longer tag name, otherwise people never use it correctly. We ended with tex-core and plain-tex, and we blacklisted latex for question about LaTeX itself in favour of latex-project. I would suggest original-vi for the B.J.'s version.

This is quickly becoming apparent in how folks are using vim. Therefore, I've done as you requested and burned + blacklisted this tag, with the following warning shown if someone tries to use it: