# On the [combinatorics] and [counting] tags.

currently has 13 questions bearing this tag. Should and be merged, or one be made a synonym of the other?

• Except for the question about nomenclature of counting numbers, all the other (counting) questions seem to belong in (combinatorics). – Arturo Magidin Dec 11 '10 at 2:52
• then should we just retag the questions? – Sean Tilson Dec 11 '10 at 3:33
• Not sure. [counting] + [combinatorics] lets you know the kind of question to expect, while just [combinatorics] might not. Of course, once the question is read, but... – Aryabhata Dec 11 '10 at 5:07
• @J.M.: If two tags are merged, can they be unmerged? Since users with more than rep $N$ for some $N$ (i don't remember) can create tags, what happens to merged tags that get "recreated". Or perhaps I am misunderstanding what merging means. – Timothy Wagner Dec 11 '10 at 15:34
• As I understand it, mere retagging won't preclude the tag being used again by future questions. Turning, say [counting], into a [combinatorics] synonym would ensure that when future questions are tagged [counting], the system automagically retags them as [combinatorics]. I was about to retag one question, but since I do not think myself possessing combinatorics expertise, I am now asking here in meta. – J. M. is a poor mathematician Dec 11 '10 at 15:40
• @Arturo: The fact that all [counting] questions belong in [combinatorics] just tells you that counting (i.e. enumerative combinatorics) is a subset of all combinatorics. In that respect, having both tags around seems no different than having both an [algebraic-topology] tag and a [topology] tag. Moreover, it's also worth having the tag around since a questioner might very well have a counting question without knowing what the word combinatorics means!! – Dan Petersen Dec 11 '10 at 21:08
• @Dan Petersen: The question is whether there is sufficient demand for specific counting questions (or for more general combinatorics one) to justify having them separate; we don't have distinct tags for (finite-group-theory) and (group-theory), for instance. As for people with counting questions not knowing what combinatorics means, wouldn't making [counting] a synonym fix that? Someone who doesn't know the word would type "counting", and the system would automatically change it to [combinatorics]. – Arturo Magidin Dec 11 '10 at 21:10
• Clarification re merging versus synonyms: merging is about existing questions; synonyms are about future questions. Merging [counting] into [combinatorics] would be a mass retagging of every [counting] question as [combinatorics] without bumping the questions to the top and with no effect on future questions. Setting [counting] as a synonym for [combinatorics] will cause any future use of [counting] to automatically be changed to [combinatorics] with no effect on existing questions. – Isaac Dec 11 '10 at 21:35
• @Isaac: Thanks for that clarification. I would support making synonyms; I'm indifferent towards merging, but perhaps it would be a good idea if we go for synonymity. – Arturo Magidin Dec 12 '10 at 4:21