For over 5 years now, our policy is that "Is There a Term for X?" questions were not allowed, as per this meta. Since then, though, the votes on that meta have changed drastically. Community support seems to have shifted more in favour of allowing these questions, or at the very least the community has become more divided on the issue, as demonstrated by the close/reopen back and forth on this question.

Should we update our policy on "Is There a Term for X?" questions to permit them, or should the policy remain as is?


I think the main issue we often see with these questions is that some believe the question is more of a general "is there a word in the English Dictionary for this thing" question. I believe in the past I've seen people get directed to the English Language & Usage SE site for questions like this.

While I think questions like this probably aren't very suitable, I think a question that is asking about a term specific to a game or collection of games does seem suitable for Arqade.

For example, lets pretend someone asked a question with the subject that boils down to What does the term bunny hopping mean? I would think that this is on topic, since bunny hopping is (arguably) a largely used term in the gaming community to describe a movement mechanic often exploited across a wide variety of games (even Wikipedia has a small section devoted to explaining bunny hopping as a video game term).

That said, the question that spawn this Meta post is a bit grey to me. I don't quite believe it aligns with what I said above. Though I can see sort of see it being on topic since it exclusively is asking about "video game apps" instead of apps in general.

To summarize, I like terminology questions where the term in question can conclusively be deemed specific to gaming and I think we should allow these kind of questions. But I might have just stumbled upon the next issue - how do we decide if a term is specific to gaming? Is this where we try to rely on the community to decide?

  • 1
    I don't think we should limit to terms specific to gaming. There is a lot of terminology from games that finds an origin in other entertainment products or even non-entertainment branches. Beyond that, +1 – Nzall Jul 21 at 18:08
  • @Nzall do you have an example? I'm curious! – Timmy Jim Jul 21 at 18:09
  • 3
    In terms of a question that's allowed: A couple months ago I asked a question about "whales" as in people that spend a lot of money on microtransactions and where it came from, and it turns out it came from poker. – Nzall Jul 21 at 20:28
  • 2
    @TimmyJim One example of mine is What is a “G.O.A.T” game?. This one was in a gray area where it was a non-gaming specific term found in a gaming context – Wondercricket Jul 21 at 20:59
  • 3
    Your answer seems to be discussing questions of the form "What does the term X mean?", looking for an answer Y. However, this meta question is asking about the other way around -- questions of the form "Is there a term for Y?", looking for an answer X. – Schism Jul 22 at 6:22
  • 2
    Another one to add to the list: clutch apparently originated in sporting commentary, not that I knew that asking the question – Robotnik Mod Jul 22 at 10:33
  • 4
    "What does the term bunny hopping mean?" is not the type of question that's being discussed here. This answer seems to be missing the difference between the two types of terminology questions we get. – Wrigglenite Mod Jul 29 at 5:13

I believe if this adjusts the tag, it should still require people to be as specific as possible, and we should not allow for broad reaching questions.

It'd be up to the community to decide on what is and isn't, but immediately closing everything that starts with "Is there a term for X" doesn't seem right. If the question is scoped and has examples or things to define what they're unsure about, I don't think that's an unfair question.

"Is there a definition for this game type" where the user gives examples of similar games, examples of what they're looking for, and has a purpose as to why they're searching for a definition (e.g they want to be able to find similar games); I believe those are fair questions to ask. The question that spawned this meta fits that, in my opinion and the answer provided is suitable. Yes, "abusive" may not be the best term to describe them, but I don't think anything about the question is vague.


It's been weeks, and this question is featured, but with no apparent consensus formed.

I'm leaving this answer here simply to allow the community to vote to keep the current policy:

  • "What does X mean?" is allowed. For example, you may ask what "bunny hopping" is.
  • "Is there a term for Y?" is off-topic. For example, you may not ask if there's a word to describe firing ordinance at the ground, and using the explosion to elevate yourself.

In my humble opinion, this category is likely to illicit lower quality (or at least less interesting) questions, but I don't think they'll be such low quality as to be a nuisance. The potential for great answers somewhat blunts that concern anyways. I would foresee most of these questions having objective answers, and those that need subjective answers would fall towards the good-subjective end of the spectrum.

I think we should just rely on our normal quality standards for deciding if these types of questions should be closed or remain open, not make the entire category off-topic.

You must log in to answer this question.

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