I'll agree with this, anyway. Tag all the background stuff, don't claim anything's canon when it isn't, and we'll all be good.
Though ... it's one thing I do prefer about the LJ/DW header system compared to the AO3 tagging system: you can specifically label pairings as 'background' in a header, while you don't seem to be able to in pairings tags on AO3. I agree with what some other people have said, it's also annoying to search for a pairing, click on stories, and find out that your pairing is only a background thing that's barely mentioned.
Surprising pairings out of nowhere are annoying. Searchable pairings that turn out to be only background are also annoying. I'd tend to err on the side of tagging things, but it does mean a lot of disappointment for people searching for some pairs.
Re: Can we just agree on this?
Though ... it's one thing I do prefer about the LJ/DW header system compared to the AO3 tagging system: you can specifically label pairings as 'background' in a header, while you don't seem to be able to in pairings tags on AO3. I agree with what some other people have said, it's also annoying to search for a pairing, click on stories, and find out that your pairing is only a background thing that's barely mentioned.
Surprising pairings out of nowhere are annoying. Searchable pairings that turn out to be only background are also annoying. I'd tend to err on the side of tagging things, but it does mean a lot of disappointment for people searching for some pairs.