Title plus what's below.

The tag's wiki is:

Mathematical Analysis generally, including Real Analysis, Harmonic Analysis, Complex Variable Theory, the Calculus of Variations, Measure Theory, and Non-Standard Analysis.

Given that all , , , , and are all existing and commonly used tags, I claim that should either be deprecated or have its wiki adjusted.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Older discussion (duplicate?): meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/4968/… $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jul 7 '14 at 12:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It seems like a duplicate, yes. However my question is two years younger. A lot (in the community) has changed. Hopefully my duplicate question will revive the discussion. I don't find t.b.'s arguments convincing. The (general-topology) and (probability) tags do not brake up in a set of covering sub tags (I'm not sure about this because I don't enough about neither of these fields, maybe someone can confirm or disprove this). $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Jul 7 '14 at 12:52
  • $\begingroup$ But even if there is such a cover, at best this shows that either those tags also need to be deprecated or that none should be deprecated at all. It doesn't justify the non-deprecation. I agree that the algebra-precalc/algebra analogy isn't fitting here. But I never argued that it was. And come to think about it, (abstract-algebra) seems to suffer from the same problem as (analysis). $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Jul 7 '14 at 12:53
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ One use of the tag I did not mention: MathOverflow tag ca.analysis-and-odes maps to it, which helps migrations go through. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Jul 9 '14 at 4:44

I think the tag should be kept in a somewhat deprecated state, as a signpost to better tags. Terminology varies by country; some askers may be unfamiliar with, say, "real analysis" because in their course it's simply "analysis". More experienced users can follow the analysis tag can add better ones.

So, I suggest to keep the tag but change the wiki to discourage its use.

For general mathematical analysis questions. Consider using a more specific tag instead: , , , , , etc.

  • $\begingroup$ Since you got no down votes and nine up votes on an apparently sterile issue, I think this is enough to consider your proposal as a solution. Would you care to edit the take wiki yourself? $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Jul 15 '14 at 12:34
  • $\begingroup$ @GitGud Traditionally, Willie Wong has been the one to deal with the wide-reaching tag decisions. It's not like we need his approval for everything, but I'd rather wait to see if he has objections. He's (apparently) on vacation now, hasn't visited since July 1. Let's wait until he comes back. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Jul 15 '14 at 17:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GitGud Okay, I think I waited long enough. Edited the tag wiki, subject to approval. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Aug 11 '14 at 15:42
  • $\begingroup$ At the time you answered this, I was satisfied with your answer. But now I'm not sure. Yes, users will often use the (analysis) tag because of their course's name. As I see it, this is all the more reason to allow this tag to exist. By doing so, they'll be forced to commit to one of the other, more specific tags. This was prompted by your answer regarding (discrete-mathematics). $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Oct 12 '14 at 18:03
  • $\begingroup$ *to not allow this tag $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Oct 12 '14 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ @GitGud To burninate and blacklist (analysis), we'd need first to retag the questions with no other tag of which there are more than 1400. That's an even bigger pile than (homework), which took weeks of slightly maniacal editing. Unlike (homework), (analysis) actually classifies a question is some, imperfect way: it is most likely some Introduction to Analysis course, i.e., (real-analysis). $\endgroup$ – user147263 Oct 12 '14 at 18:43

You must log in to answer this question.

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