Timeline for Tag management 2016
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 hours ago | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | May it rest in peace again. | |
| 13 hours ago | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | The tag injectivity was created again in October 2024. | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:22 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 26, 2016 at 17:05 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Aug 5, 2016 at 8:05 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor typo
|
| Jul 24, 2016 at 7:00 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 46 characters in body
|
| Jul 12, 2016 at 5:02 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | Nothing happened, and the weekend passed with additional day for people to voice their opinion. I'm going to remove these tags now. If they pop up again (and I haven't been ahead of you in removing them immediately), we'll talk about synonymizing them. | |
| Jul 9, 2016 at 10:30 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | That is an option. Although truth be told, I'm not a huge fan of the functions tag in general. | |
| Jul 9, 2016 at 10:25 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | BTW what would you think about synonyms for this tag with (functions) as the master tag? (And I have made a few comments which are vaguely related to this discussion in tagging chat room,) | |
| Jul 9, 2016 at 10:07 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | I guess we can wait a couple of days, at least after the weekend, before concluding that nobody else cares enough to weigh in. :-) | |
| Jul 9, 2016 at 10:06 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | @AsafKaragila If we want to see whether somebody else will comment or at least vote, we should wait at least for a few days. (Not everybody reacts within hours of posting.) But I certainly agree that tag-related posts often do not get enough feedback and if they do, the tags can grow in the meantime. If you want to remove these tags preemptively before they become large and removing them would cause bumping many posts, I will not object to it. As list of all taged questions and tag-wikis are saved in chat, it would be relatively easy to recreate the tags (if that is community consensus). | |
| Jul 9, 2016 at 10:04 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 304 characters in body
|
| Jul 9, 2016 at 9:47 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | I should probably add that I removed similar tags in the past (if my memory serves me right, those were "bi-/in-/sur-jection" named, but who can remember these things?) and I would have removed them judiciously if I had noticed them before you made this post. The real question, now, is whether or not anyone else is going to weigh in. | |
| Jul 9, 2016 at 8:04 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jul 9, 2016 at 7:44 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | I have also pinged the tag creator to let them know about this thread. | |
| Jul 9, 2016 at 7:04 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | I don't see how any of these three tags help, other than causing new users who have no idea how to tag their questions use them instead of proper tagging. But unlike the case where someone uses [real-analysis] or something like that, nobody really follows these new tags, so nobody really notices the questions and tags them appropriately. | |
| Jul 9, 2016 at 6:19 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 412 characters in body
|
| Jul 9, 2016 at 6:13 | history | answered | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 3.0 |