In How should I choose between [知]{し}る and わかる? Derek asked about usage of 知る and 分かる. My tentative reply was made of examples (and their translations) that show either usage or explicit nuances, and a comment stating that unless one feels the difference, imitation was the key. His reply shows he didn't seem satisfied at all, while I think I answered his question.
My point is then: should askers tell whether they're looking after the reply of a linguist, or do they just want to be able to write/talk in Japanese? I based most of my knowledge of word usage on imitation and questions like "can I say A work in this precise context?", not on rules. To "what is the difference between A and B", I will always answer with examples, and I'd rather not be welcome with "If all you have is examples, I could have googled it myself."
So, how about a tag that would say "hey, I want a long and technical dissertation that tries to exhaustively map Japanese grammar to English grammar, rather that just examples, however carefully crafted to express particular common nuances and usages"?