That is an understandable response. I think I took http://wiki.splitbrain.org/wiki:discussion:bugtracking
as a suggestion as to how to hook a bug tracking system into DokuWiki. The page seemed to start as explaining how to hook flypaper into DokuWiki, and then other people seemed to have indicated that they hooked other systems in. (Such as Mantis, which is what we use.) I took this page as a suggestion "bug>" be used in your interwiki.local.conf to tie bugs into your wiki documentation.
These two paragraphs are the ones that caught my eye:
"To reference bugs an interwiki shortcut named bug was added which allows to link directly to a bugs detail page by its ID: [[bug>4]] → 4
"FlySpray seems to be a simple and easy to use Bug Tracking system. It’s a good choice, specially since it seems the development team aims to integrate some sort of WikiParser into it, which will ease writing and editing descriptions. Still, some nice-to-have features are lacking:"
Since interwiki.local.conf allows you to override "bug>", that enforced this perception that "bug>" was a suggested tag to use. If "bug>" was not overloadable, then I would have chosen something else. It seemed intelligible since it's short and easy to remember; probably for the same reasons DokuWiki chose it to link to their bug database.