35
$\begingroup$

Moderator's Note: I am (at least) temporarily closing this thread. New suggestions should be made in the current Winter tag cleanup meta-thread.

This is half a question, half an announcement. I will be going through the list of tags and merging particularly bad ones (e.g. ones that aren't mathematical or are too specific) into the tag [tag-removed]. I will also be creating tag synonyms. Any suggestions for mergers or synonyms should go into this thread.

Roughly speaking, here is my general policy: if I can't imagine a person classifying a tag as either interesting or ignored, I'm getting rid of it.

Edit: This thread and the tag changes archive have been merged for simplicity.

Edit2: I've started a new summary thread. Moderators: please allow sufficient time (at least 1 day) for discussion on "non-trivial" proposals, before actual implementation (some of such "non-trivial" ones are still not yet resolved, see the list below). After implementation please first comment to indicate implementation (to get a date stamp), then delete the answer to unclutter, and add a line to the summary thread.

$\endgroup$
23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Changes are automatically recorded at math.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms?filter=all&tab=master , but for changes initiated by moderators please also post them as answers in this thread so that they can be voted and commented upon. In theory, reversal or a different synonym might be a result of the discussion in some cases. (In practice, the moderator judgements have been reasonable as one can see at that link.) $\endgroup$
    – T..
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 5:59
  • $\begingroup$ I deleted two tag synonyms experimentally, but unfortunately I do not remember what they are. Anyone who misses them enough to remember them should post it in this thread and let it be voted on. $\endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan Mod
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 6:01
  • $\begingroup$ @T..: should I also report on the tags I've merged? $\endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan Mod
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 6:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think it's good practice to document any changes if it's not completely annoying to do so. Maybe a separate "tag changes history" thread can be the archive and this one for the suggestions. This is just my preference, I have no idea what others might think, but because the tag system already contains some evolved structure it seems like any modification should be documented. This might also be useful for other purposes later. $\endgroup$
    – T..
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 6:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @T..: I'm not so sure. Most of what I'll be doing is essentially garbage-collection and I don't think that's worth documenting. Anything that's not obviously garbage-collection I'll propose in this thread. $\endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan Mod
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 6:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also, I have the feeling that decisions on tags will often arise after a certain amount of back and forth about competing proposals (see e.g. the current discussion on [cardinals] or the earlier one that led to [elementary-set-theory]) and it is easy to forget the logic of the decision later on. The tag system is part of the knowledge-organization function performed by the site, so it could be very interesting over time to see how the choices are made and what principles can be distilled from the process. $\endgroup$
    – T..
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 6:18
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ re: garbage collection, individual decisions might be trivial but taken cumulatively there may be non-obvious decisions to be made, patterns noticed or design criteria articulated. It would suffice to have a single "garbage tags" posting (list each removed tag plus number of times it was used) that keeps growing from the garbage collection in progress, but visibility of the changes has its own value. Simply knowing the fraction and nature of junk tags is useful for considering the future evolution of the tag system. $\endgroup$
    – T..
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 6:23
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the additional thread. May I suggest the format "[original tag], change, number of postings affected, sample link". $\endgroup$
    – T..
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 7:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @T..: the latter. $\endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan Mod
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 8:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ why are people downvoting? also, this is much better idea than the previous one. $\endgroup$
    – Sean Tilson
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 15:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This seems to have gotten absolutely unreadable. I think we'd be much better off with each request in its own question. $\endgroup$
    – Isaac
    Commented Apr 29, 2011 at 18:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Qiaochu: Because it takes too long to figure out what's new or changed when this monster-question gets bumped to the top. If one person has many tag changes to suggest, they can post them all in one meta question if they want, but I think we'd be more likely to get useful information from answers on such questions and votes on the question and answers if each suggestion were its own question. $\endgroup$
    – Isaac
    Commented Apr 30, 2011 at 0:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Qiaochu ...And comments in new answers are folded immediately (because there are too many comments in total) — I second the idea of starting new thread or something $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Aug 18, 2011 at 12:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ New thread: meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/12485 $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Jan 16, 2014 at 16:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This question is now superseded by the Winter tag cleanup thread. $\endgroup$
    – user642796 Mod
    Commented Feb 6, 2014 at 9:08

70 Answers 70

Reset to default
1
2
3
3
$\begingroup$

Do we really need , , and as three separate tags?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is the probability for a question to have any of them? :-) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jul 13, 2011 at 16:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I suppose we should retain (probability-distributions) and subsume/synonymize the other two... $\endgroup$
    – J. M. ain't a mathematician
    Commented Jul 23, 2011 at 19:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @J.M.: I agree. $\endgroup$
    – Mike Spivey
    Commented Sep 3, 2011 at 20:36
3
$\begingroup$

Shouldn't and be synonymous?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ By name, yes. But look at the actual questions tagged tessellations. I think some of them are not actually about plane tilings. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Oct 3, 2011 at 12:40
3
$\begingroup$

How about we kick the bucket on ? Besides the fact that this is a technique used in linear algebra, this is the name of one of the most prominent proof techniques in logic and set theory (Russell paradox, Cantor's theorem, Incompleteness theorems, existence of $\Gamma$-universal sets for a myriad of pointclasses, and more).

But I also think that as a tag it has no real value, and it mainly clutters the linear algebra related tags. I don't see someone particularly following this tag (I mean, who has a thing for matrix diagonalization? Sure, Rule 36, but still...); and if anyone ever wants to search for it they could use "[linear-algebra] diagonalization" to get sufficient results in a second.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Would it be justified to synonymize and (both ~100 questions)? as the primary tag seems sensible to me.

$\endgroup$
1
3
$\begingroup$

Meta tags:

Please merge with .

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ The two are now merged. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Dec 9, 2013 at 10:11
2
$\begingroup$

This question was tagged [sangaku]. Merged to [puzzle].

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Sangaku are not puzzles, they are (in most cases) theorems in classical Euclidean geometry. Suggest to keep it or merge/syn with [euclidean-geometry]. $\endgroup$
    – T..
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 8:02
  • $\begingroup$ The question was already tagged "puzzle," so no additional merging or unmerging is necessary. I can synonymize with [euclidean-geometry] but I don't expect this tag to see much traffic. $\endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan Mod
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 8:03
2
$\begingroup$

This question was tagged [iteration]. Merged to [tag-removed].

$\endgroup$
7
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Could people who downvoted this explain their motives? It seems that somebody must have derived some non-trivial information from seeing the tag [iteration], which, I have to admit, baffles me. $\endgroup$
    – Alex B.
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 15:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There have been a number of problems (and presumably more in future) asking for asymptotics of an iteration. These are purely problems of real or complex analysis with similar methods used in the different solutions; it is a genre of its own with an interconnected (and cross-linked) body of questions. The answers generally do not use concepts of dynamical systems (invariant measure, ergodicity, chaos, stability, ...) except fixed point. I think it is more informative to label them as [analysis] [iteration], or the same with [dynamical-systems] as an additional tag, not a replacement. $\endgroup$
    – T..
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 17:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I would appreciate some explanation. I cannot imagine anyone putting [iteration] as either an interesting-tag or an ignored-tag and, as I explained, that is my primary criterion for removing tags. $\endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan Mod
    Commented Dec 17, 2010 at 18:54
  • $\begingroup$ The linked Q&A contains a discussion of why it was difficult to for the OP to locate related questions. An [iteration] or [iterated-function] tag would have eliminated that difficulty had it been applied to the other questions. In fact, doing so retroactively would be useful. Dynamical systems is a broad and largely irrelevant category for these questions about single orbits. None of these questions, their answers or the references cited mention dynamical systems (e.g. the famous chapter of De Bruijn's book is on "Iterated Functions"). [Analysis] applies but is a huge category. $\endgroup$
    – T..
    Commented Dec 18, 2010 at 5:43
  • $\begingroup$ @T..: if you feel strongly enough about this tag you are free to reintroduce it; the moderators don't have a monopoly on that. $\endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan Mod
    Commented Dec 18, 2010 at 6:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Qiaochu: as the downvoter, I answered first Alex's question and then your further request for explanation. Feeling strongly or weakly or any other type of feeling have nothing to do with it; I simply provided some details that were requested about rationale for an [iteration] tag. The only feeling I'd like to share here is the thought that something much more beneficial for the site culture than any specific decision about tags, is for everyone to avoid discussing, alluding to, or speculating upon users' feelings, motives, thoughts, etc (even in the semi-hypothetical "if you feel X" mode). $\endgroup$
    – T..
    Commented Dec 18, 2010 at 7:25
  • $\begingroup$ A minor point in case anyone finds it amusing. I realized after posting that I had not actually downvoted, only intended to do so and reconsidered or never got around to it. So the "true" downvoter has not explained himself, but may have spoken again through upvotes on the comments. $\endgroup$
    – T..
    Commented Dec 19, 2010 at 21:48
2
$\begingroup$

I accidentally created the linear-optimization tag earlier today on this question: In linear optimization, what does "AP" stand for?. I have since changed it to the already-existing linear-programming tag, but now we have a linear-optimization tag that doesn't point to anything. Would you delete the linear-optimization tag?

$\endgroup$
2
2
$\begingroup$

Can anybody give a good reason why the and tags are separate? I would say retain one or the other, but certainly not both.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ As an additional note: I think [numerical-linear-algebra] is too specific a tag; better that the questions have both the [linear-algebra] and [numerical-(whatever)] tags. $\endgroup$
    – J. M. ain't a mathematician
    Commented Apr 7, 2011 at 9:02
  • $\begingroup$ M. I don't think there is a way we can replace one tag with two. So some one will have to go through the numerical linear algebra tag and re-tag every one of them manually. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Apr 7, 2011 at 9:32
  • $\begingroup$ I've made numerical-methods and numerical-analysis synonyms. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Apr 7, 2011 at 9:34
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much, @Willie. $\endgroup$
    – J. M. ain't a mathematician
    Commented Apr 7, 2011 at 9:36
2
$\begingroup$

(1 question) should be merged as a synonym of (36+ questions). Some people also use for questions about computability; I guess someone will have to look at those by hand, because that last tag could also be about recurrence relations or other forms of recursion.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ My mistake, sorry... $\endgroup$
    – Yuval Filmus
    Commented May 2, 2011 at 2:01
  • $\begingroup$ It's a perfectly reasonable tag name, we just seem to have started on "computability" first. Do I understand correctly that after they are merged, if someone else uses "recursion-theory" the software will replace it with "computability" automatically? That would be ideal. $\endgroup$
    – Carl Mummert
    Commented May 2, 2011 at 2:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Carl: I believe that is not merging but rather tag synonyms. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented May 2, 2011 at 8:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf: is this documented somewhere? $\endgroup$
    – Carl Mummert
    Commented May 2, 2011 at 11:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Carl: No, I am certain Jeff can answer that, though. One of the mods as well. This was the reason I used "believe" :-) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented May 2, 2011 at 12:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf and Carl, there are two different ways to do tag merges: with synonyms turned on or off. With it on, it will behave as Carl described in the second comment above. With it off, the tag can be created anew. (There are, in some cases, good reasons for doing that.) $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented May 3, 2011 at 9:55
  • $\begingroup$ I've made recursion-theory as a synonym of computability. Someone better informed will have to look at recursive by hand. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented May 3, 2011 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Willie: Thanks. I have been looking at the "recursive" ones, but I try to just do one at a time to avoid flooding the main page. $\endgroup$
    – Carl Mummert
    Commented May 3, 2011 at 10:52
2
$\begingroup$

I am not a big fan of the tag . Part of its purpose can be absorbed into the tag . The other part of its purpose probably just shouldn't be: I think if you are asking for the big picture in the sense beyond mathematical intuition, your question will be more often better served

  • By looking the subject up in an encyclopedia
  • By rephrasing it to be more focused and answerable.

(In short, I think the concept of "big-picture" encourages questions that are more ambiguous and vague.)

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

There is a tag (107 questions) and there are (32 questions) and (3 questions).

In a perfect world, the two latter tags would be specifications of the former. However, there are various uses of these names, specifically, the gamma function is also used for the somewhat related gamma-distribution in probability, specifically here, here and (sort of) here.

Recently, there were a few questions tagged that had to do with the Bachmann-Landau $\Theta$ appearing in asymptotics ("... grows asymptotically as fast as ...").

I suggest:

  1. Let's get rid of (delete it, no substitution/merge) and disallow its use in the future for being too specific.
  2. Leave since it is used frequently enough.

Alternatively to 2. one could also think about making a synonym of at the risk of having to re-tag some probabilistic questions manually (even if that tag wouldn't be completely out of place, IMO).

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I suppose you took care of the asymptotic $\Theta$s? I agree with (1), and am inclined to agree with the alternative to (2). $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Jul 12, 2011 at 10:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Willie: Yes, I did take care of the asymptotic $\Theta$s. $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Jul 12, 2011 at 10:50
2
$\begingroup$

We all appreciate the importance of but how needed is this tag?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Almost 70 questions are using this tag at the moment, so it will take some work to remove it. (If that will be the outcome of voting on your answer.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Aug 26, 2012 at 3:26
2
$\begingroup$

What about ? One question with no votes and no answers has it as an only tag, the rest - I think - it can be removed completely.

Or is it that mods here still cannot delete a tag?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ We cannot delete a tag. To have the tags removed we have to retag all the questions or merge it into another one. And it is not all that bad compared to others. I find it hard to justify to myself why it must be removed. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Nov 25, 2011 at 12:35
2
$\begingroup$

I should have brought this up a few days ago when the tag had just been created, but I don't think satisfies the Qiaochu criterion, "Can you imagine a person classifying a tag as either interesting or ignored?"

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I personally would keep the tag, but I neither upvoted nor downvoted your answer yet. (If I had to decide I would keep it, but I am not entirely sure.) If we would decide to get rid of this tag, wouldn't merging in into some bigger tag for "language-related" questions (or renaming and adding other questions) be better? Although I am not sure what a good name for such tag would be, apart from pronunciation we have several questions related to translations of mathematical terms (and probably some other similar questions could be found). $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Aug 7, 2012 at 6:13
2
$\begingroup$

seems to be used for essentially the same kind of thing as .

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ There was a suggestion to synonymize in this post. It received some support (two upvotes), but it has not been discussed too much. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Oct 8, 2013 at 12:26
2
$\begingroup$

After retagging two questions, (10q) is now ripe for merging with .

Edit: As pointed out by zyx, already exists. Probably better to merge it into that one (or perhaps merge both into , but not every question about quadratics involves an equation).

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The tag description for 221 question (quadratics) is that it is about quadratic equations, so that tag should rather be merged into (quadratic-equation). $\endgroup$
    – zyx
    Commented Nov 1, 2013 at 17:40
2
$\begingroup$

https://math.stackexchange.com/tags/theorem-provers/info links to , which has no summary or tag wiki and appears indistinguishable.

Edit

The tag also has no tag wiki, and may also be a candidate for merging.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Resolved: has been merged into (and made a synonym of) .

I am thinking of merging the meta-tag into (without synonymising). All of our questions deal with the 2013 Winter Bash, and IMHO it is unlikely that any future questions will come up outside of a future Winter Bash.

While I could unilaterally enact this change, I'm hoping I can get one or two upvotes here before doing so (or be told a good reason why I should not).

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I have suggested that these two tags could be synonyms in the tagging chatroom. See here and here. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 9, 2014 at 7:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin: My preference would be to simply get rid of hat by emptying it via merging, and then let it be deleted. Is there a reason you think hat should be preserved at all (even as a synonym of another tag)? $\endgroup$
    – user642796 Mod
    Commented Jan 9, 2014 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ IMO it is possible that someone would create (hat) again, if they have a question about hats. (And they do not notice the tag ([meta-tag-winter-bash]).) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 9, 2014 at 10:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Martin: I guess if there is ever a non-Winter-Bash reason to have a hat tag, a mod can always remove the synonym. I'll go ahead and do all this presently. $\endgroup$
    – user642796 Mod
    Commented Jan 9, 2014 at 11:10
1
$\begingroup$

In continuation to my quest to sort out [cardinals] and [large-cardinals] (after accepting the fact there is no way these two will be merged) without bumping the hell out of many questions:

The following should be switched to/added as [large-cardinals]

While the following should be taken off [large-cardinals]

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Asaf, as far as I know I can't change the tags on specific questions without bumping them. I can only merge all of one tag into another. $\endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan Mod
    Commented Jan 6, 2011 at 23:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Qiaochu: I see. In that case, I guess it's best to leave things as they are perhaps. Or just go along with my original idea and merge cardinals and large-cardinals ;-) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jan 6, 2011 at 23:30
1
$\begingroup$

I suggest to merge (only six posts) with .

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ at least two of those needs to be retagged if we follow your proposal, as they are actually questions of real analyticity, which is quite very different from complex-analysis. As it currently is, I don't see sufficient reason to actually go through with the merge. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Mar 23, 2011 at 16:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Willie: Right, I hadn't looked carefully enough. Sorry for the noise. $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Mar 24, 2011 at 8:24
1
$\begingroup$

Aren't we all in one way or another?

Well, not all of us. However these six questions here hardly make a point in favor of this tag.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ The questions in that tag has a spread. Some are about the profession of being a mathematician, and some are about historical famous mathematicians. The latter can probably be safely retagged into (math-history). Is there a better tag for the former? $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Jul 29, 2011 at 15:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Willie: Of course. (soft-question) :-) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jul 29, 2011 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ I am in favor of keeping the tag. However, @Willie asked about appropriate tag for questions about the profession of being a mathematician. The tag advice seems reasonable to me. (Although I did not find many questions of this kind - perhaps some questions had already been retagged.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jul 17, 2012 at 10:37
1
$\begingroup$

Do we really need ? I mean, a good deal of mathematics is essentially about continuity...

This tag seems a wee bit undefined; overly broad; and all in all irritating.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ IIRC this tag has been introduced by Srivatsan; see the chat transcript here. I can imagine it as a suitable tag for some questions about equivalent definitions of continuity; or sequential continuity vs. continuity. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jun 11, 2012 at 13:22
  • $\begingroup$ I wonder why you have a gripe with (continuity) and introduce (compactness) which is at least as broad... :) $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Jul 6, 2012 at 9:41
  • $\begingroup$ @t.b. I had a problem with this tag, but now I have less problem with it. This post is old! $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jul 6, 2012 at 9:43
  • $\begingroup$ I see... Forced yourself into a different tagging model, I presume. $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Jul 6, 2012 at 9:45
  • $\begingroup$ @t.b. Not quite, it is just that the inductive process generating the model is never done, so with time new things are added and truth values change. No forcing... Yet! $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jul 6, 2012 at 9:55
  • $\begingroup$ well yes, there is forcing: you force me (the continuum tuberculosis) to live with (compactness) which makes me independent :) $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Jul 6, 2012 at 10:07
  • $\begingroup$ @t.b. Well as long as I don't have to force myself to do things, I am good. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jul 6, 2012 at 10:20
1
$\begingroup$

Can we make go bye-bye?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Bye-bye where? Just kill, or merge? $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Dec 9, 2013 at 10:06
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know, what do you think? $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Dec 9, 2013 at 10:19
  • $\begingroup$ I would say kill, probably. What could it merge with? $\endgroup$
    – dfeuer
    Commented Dec 11, 2013 at 6:06
1
$\begingroup$

should be merged with and should henceforth be regarded a synonym or similar term.

I also suggest the creation of the synonyms and (indices) and even (orders) if possible but that may result in a confusion with maybe.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I will decline the "indices" synonym, since there are many other uses of the term. "exponents" I think is not strictly necessary, since users with javascript enabled will see "exponentiation" suggested if they start typing the first few letters of "exponents". $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Dec 9, 2013 at 10:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (orders) is a bad idea, also, as you already noted. In any case, I just created the mapping (powers) -> (exponentiation) and did the merge. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Dec 9, 2013 at 10:09
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong: Acknowledged and I thank you, on behalf of the entire stackexchange community, for your dedicated efforts. $\endgroup$
    – Nick
    Commented Dec 9, 2013 at 10:13
1
$\begingroup$

[RESOLVED]

The tag is misspelled (should be ).

Am I right to think such a correction requires Moderator intervention?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I just manually retagged the questions to the more correct probabilistic-method tag. This seems to be the appropriate action as per this MSO post. (Clearly this did not require moderator intervention.) $\endgroup$
    – user642796 Mod
    Commented Jan 7, 2014 at 7:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, the only drawback is that tag wiki has to be recreated. I'm on it. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Commented Jan 7, 2014 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ Ooops. Didn't notice that there was a tag-wiki. Apologies. $\endgroup$
    – user642796 Mod
    Commented Jan 7, 2014 at 13:01
0
$\begingroup$

Just a few comments:

I think that Sum should be removed or at least be made a synonym of Series. But probably remove it.

I don't know what Untagged is? Maybe it is the same as Tag-removed? Probably should be removed.

I don't see the point of Relations. It seems totally arbitrary, and I see no advantage to having it.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the point of untagged is that, the question is untagged. If you remove the untagged tag, it is still untagged, so ... (also, it is different from tag-removed. tag-removed does not mean that the tag is removed from the question, but that the tag has been removed from the list of available tags. That option is now obsolete by the new tag rename and tag merge/synonym systems.) $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented May 3, 2011 at 9:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Which means that the way to fix untagged would be to actually give them tags, manually, one by one. (One way for untagged questions to occur is when a question was migrated from another site, and on that site it was using only tags which we do not have here.) $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented May 3, 2011 at 9:36
  • $\begingroup$ The relations tag may have been used for several different things. Looking at the list of questions it is not obvious to me what you want to merge it into. It will have to be dealt with by hand. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented May 3, 2011 at 9:37
  • $\begingroup$ I've dealt with (sum). And am working through (untagged) by hand. There are at least a few that I don't know how to tag (partially being really off topic). $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented May 3, 2011 at 9:42
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, those were just some oddballs I noticed. :) $\endgroup$
    – BBischof
    Commented May 3, 2011 at 14:16
  • $\begingroup$ I believe relations might be useful. Some time ago I have created tag-wiki and tag-excerpt to indicate the intended use of this tag, see here. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jun 20, 2012 at 10:33
0
$\begingroup$

The has only two questions, and should be merged/synonymized with .

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ If the fact that the past four posts are mine is problematic I will be happy to simply edit further requests into this post (or another). $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented May 23, 2011 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ I think that it's better not to give more than one proposal in one post, unless they are closely related. Otherwise it is not clear what an upvote/downvote on such post means. (It is upvote for all proposals? For some of them?) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jul 2, 2012 at 6:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin: Huh? I think you commented on the wrong answer... :-) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jul 2, 2012 at 6:45
  • $\begingroup$ It was my (somewhat belated) comment to If ..., I will be happy to simply edit further requests into this post. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jul 2, 2012 at 9:45
0
$\begingroup$

? Seriously? -stuff tag?

$\endgroup$
21
  • $\begingroup$ I think we owe that to MO: mathoverflow.net/questions/tagged/simplicial-stuff one of the very first questions was tagged this way and the tag remained: mathoverflow.net/questions/691/simplicial-objects $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 11:10
  • $\begingroup$ I've creared this one (modeling MO, indeed), but I'm open to suggestions -- what do you propose, actually? $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 11:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Theo: Doesn't make it right, I say :-) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 11:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Grigory: I have no idea. However -stuff sounds weird. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 11:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Grigory: Almost, but not quite: math.stackexchange.com/posts/45433/revisions, I think we share responsibility ;-) $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 11:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf: I don't think it's that bad. The thing is that there is lots of simplicial stuff out there and it is hard to come up with a good alternative. $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 11:17
  • $\begingroup$ ...But I think, we need a tag wiki for this one (maybe later -- there are too few questions so far, but still). $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 11:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Grigory: Well, I don't know. Googling for simplicial sets site:math.stackexchange.com gives me quite a few hits and many of them would be appropriately tagged as (simplicial-stuff), I counted at least a dozen questions that should be tagged this way. $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 11:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Grigory: Okay I overestimated massively. I'm now through the list and only found the two (the one retagged by you and the one I retagged). $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 11:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Theo: [simplical-objects] maybe? $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 11:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, I don't think this is descriptive enough. It's more about the morphisms (as usual). @Grigory: What do you think of [simplicial-methods]? $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 11:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Theo For me [simplicial-methods] is more like when [simplicial-stuff] is applied to study something else (simplicial methods in topology, homological algebra, whatever) — so for questions about model structure on simplicial preasheaves [simplicial-stuff] seems to be slightly more natural. But I'm not sure, maybe it's OK (but I don't really see how it's better). $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 12:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf: I wonder if simplicial categories would be too ambiguous $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 12:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes I do. Maybe one should ask about it on meta.MO because 1. there might be more need to do something about it as there are more than 100 questions tagged this way (as opposed to currently 4 here) 2. there might be more experts that could come up with good ideas for alternatives. On the other hand, one could simply split this probably rarely used tag up into [simplicial-sets], [model-categories], and maybe [simplicial-methods] and introduce further tags as needed. $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 12:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Theo: I am very much against splitting rarely used tags into even scarcer tags. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jun 28, 2011 at 13:37
0
$\begingroup$

Do we really need around? While at it, seems a bit redundant too.

Lastly, seems like it could be renamed to be except perhaps a small handful which can be easily corrected manually.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The (transformation) tag is an extremely bad one. Not all of the items in it are linear-transformations, it will require sorting through by hand. Someone seems to have dealt with mapping. I am not sure about (parity). It is a valid, named concept in mathematics. But with only 4 questions in it, it is not looking like it is too useful. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 21:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Willie: My sentiments exactly. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jul 22, 2011 at 21:54
  • $\begingroup$ Oops, (mapping) was not dealt with. There seems to have been a glitch the last time I checked, because now it looks like it has 9 question. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Jul 23, 2011 at 0:23
  • $\begingroup$ @Willie: It seems that just as you finished with (mappings) it came back, along with its brother (hash-function), both seem out of place (to the site, not to the question). $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jul 23, 2011 at 18:09
  • $\begingroup$ You could have just dealt with mappings too. You know. OTOH, I've never dealt with hash-function. Since non-research-level theoretical computer science is technically on topic, I don't think we should do anything about hash-function. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong Mod
    Commented Jul 23, 2011 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Willie: Just removing seems bland and tasteless, I was unsure what to do. I figured I could either ping you here, or flag the post which would probably be a bad idea... $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jul 23, 2011 at 20:33
1
2
3

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