It seems almost daily there's a new question about getting started something or other.
There were a bunch of these "getting started" questions in untagged which looked really crufty to me.
I created getting-started just now and I think it's reasonable to have just one question for "getting started", under each category.
Yay? Nay?
Absolutely not. We don't want to encourage "getting-started" questions. We want to discourage them. By giving them a tag, it makes it sound like we want them. So when we tell people that we don't want them, it seems like we're indecisive.
Also, you should bring this stuff up before you crud up the front page by bumping a ton of crap, closed questions. Don't edit a closed question unless you're trying to turn it into a question that deserves to be opened.
No.
getting-started is the same as beginner in that it's a meta tag. http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/08/the-death-of-meta-tags/
untagged questions should be retagged to something else, or if they're worthless they should be deleted. Edit: I just did that to all the questions you had tagged like so. (The only reason they're untagged was due to admin-level tag deletion.)
This depends on how one interprets "getting started", and there are two main classes of "getting started" questions I see as relevant here.
The first class includes questions along the lines of "which language should I choose", or "how do I set up my development environment", or the ever-dreaded "should I choose OpenGL or D3D" (I feel dirty even mentioning it). These are the kind of questions we should be clamping down on - hard. They're too subjective, too open to extended discussion, could be addressed by R-ing TFM, generate a poor signal-to-noise ratio and degrade the overall value of the site.
The second class may include a hypothetical "I'm getting started with <X> and have run into <insert specific problem here>". This has potential to be a good question and generate good and useful answers that may help others too (so long as it's not a one-liner with a code-dump, that is). This kind of question, when done well, is worthy of encouragement, and should not be clamped down on.
As it is, maybe the very term "getting started" is itself a mite ambiguous as it's open to interpretation either way? Maybe a reconsideration of the wording used might be in order?
