There are many questions about well-ordered sets on the main and I consider well-orders to be an important topic. So perhaps they could deserve their own tag.

On the other hand, many questions about well-orders are at the same time questions about ordinals so tagging them by both and (well-orderings) (or whatever the name of the new tag would be) seem to me somewhat duplicate. If we want the questions where well-orders are a relevant part of the question tagged with , making a synonym would help to achieve this. (I am not sure, which of the two should be the master tag. In any case, if we decide to use the two tags as synonymous, the tag-excerpt should mention both well-orderings and ordinals.)

To me, the best solution seems to be creating such a tag as a synonym for . EDIT: On the second thought, I am now not sure whether they should be synonyms. (But I am not totally opposed to the idea of the synonym.) I will wait and see what other users have to say about this.

Some additional comments:

  • As mentioned here could possibly be used as an umbrella tag for various types of orderings, including well-orders. But this does not seems such a good idea to me. (Well-ordered sets are not explicitly mentioned in the tag-wiki for .)
  • As mentioned here, we already have some questions tagged where the question does not explicitly mentions ordinals, only well-ordered sets. One such example is here.

EDIT: Since the discussion about this tag kind of ceased and received no further feedback apart from the few comments below, I went ahead and created tag. Maybe this can renew the discussion about tags for questions from this area a bit. And either we will reach the conclusion that such questions deserve a tag of their own, or a synonym (in one direction or the other) will be created.

  • $\begingroup$ A bit off-topic, but not entirely unrelated. Are we supposed to use the tag (cardinals) for questions asking for bijective functions (not necessarily isomorphisms of some structures) and for elementary cardinal arithmetic equalities and inequalities? $\endgroup$ – Git Gud Oct 15 '14 at 9:36
  • $\begingroup$ @GitGud There were some discussions about (cardinals), see here and here. It seems that the usage of this tag is not entirely consistent with the tag-wiki and I agree with Arthur Fischer's suggestion to change the tag-wiki for (cardinals). $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Oct 15 '14 at 9:46
  • $\begingroup$ As far as changing the tag wiki of [cardinals], I wrote it when the tag wikis were new, and it wasn't very clear as to what is going to be there. I feel, for quite some time now, that the tag wiki of this tag is not very good in serving its purpose. So it would be a good idea to rewrite it. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 15 '14 at 17:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think the synonym solution is best. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo Oct 15 '14 at 18:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I didn't feel great about it then, and I don't feel great about it now. But I do think that it should plural, rather than singular. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 15 '16 at 5:52
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila So you suggest (well-orders)? Or (well-orderings)? Or (well-ordered-sets)? Anyway, it is just a few edits, feel free to go ahead and change the tag in the questions. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Oct 15 '16 at 5:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ One of the first two options. But I'm generally not in favor of this tag anyway. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 15 '16 at 5:56
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila Anyway, it would probably helped the discussion if you posted an answer rather than a comment and tried to say why you are against the tag and what do you propose. (Whether you are for removal of the tag for for the synonym with ordinals.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Oct 15 '16 at 6:01
  • $\begingroup$ Martin, I haven't fully decided yet what I think about it. It's just my "automatic opinion" to start with a negative bias towards new tags. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 15 '16 at 6:22
  • $\begingroup$ The first "naturally tagged" question has been asked. And exactly the thing I dislike about new tags happened. It was tagged with relations and well-orders. Sure, there are some 43 people following the former tag, so it is likely one of them would have come across the question, but the tag itself doesn't really fit the question. I only saw it by chance (and omnipresence, I guess). And this is my main gripe against new tags: since a lot of users, especially new, don't know how to tag a question properly, introducing new tags introduces confusion and limits proper exposure. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 20 '16 at 12:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .