1
$\begingroup$

A review edit for the tag just popped up on my queue. After looking at the number of questions tagged (7), it seems like an unnecessary tag because it is extremely specific and vague at the same time - specific because it is about one kind of surface, vague because it says nothing about the surface. Should this tag be deprecated?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What's the cost in keeping the tag? $\endgroup$ – daOnlyBG Oct 31 '14 at 8:07
5
$\begingroup$

There are over 10000 questions on the site. Often these are Euclidean geometry questions: planimetry or stereometry. There should be some way to break this pile of questions further. There are tags that attempt to do this:

Sure, stereometry does not get nearly as much attention in curricula (I recall Plato complaining about this already), and seems to be a relatively new tag. I think it deserves a chance to stay.

That said: I did not like the proposed wiki at all, and replaced the proposed text with a stub.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You make a pretty compelling argument. I'm still not a big fan of it but I'll let others weigh in. $\endgroup$ – Cameron Williams Oct 31 '14 at 3:39
  • $\begingroup$ I dare say the tags [circle] and [triangle] should be renamed [circles] and [triangles] respectively. $\endgroup$ – Rahul Nov 1 '14 at 7:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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