# Tag management 2016 [duplicate]

Since it is a new year and the old Tag Management question has already over 70 answers, it is time for a new Tag Management thread.

Rules of the game are basically the same:

• A particularly bad tag (a rule of thumb: «if I can't imagine a person classifying a tag as either interesting or ignored, I'm getting rid of it»),
• A tag that should be a synonym of an existing one,
• A tag that used for two or more completely unrelated things,
• A need to create a new tag;
• Wait a couple of days before implementing a suggestion.
• After the problem described in an answer is resolved, please edit it to say so.

Also, note that one may use [tag:calculus] for , i.e. tags on the main site, and [meta-tag:discussion] for , i.e. for tags on the meta site.

• I like how this is a game, but you didn't explain the points system. – Simply Beautiful Art Sep 20 '16 at 23:59
• Maybe it's time to start a new thread, and the first answer there should encompass the still-open issues from this thread? – Asaf Karagila Jan 15 '17 at 8:38
• @AsafKaragila Should I copy all the still-open answers onto the new thread in multiple different answers? – suomynonA Jan 17 '17 at 1:36
• @suomynonA: One answer with links should suffice. Thanks! – Asaf Karagila Jan 17 '17 at 4:09
• @AsafKaragila Take a look here, looks good? – suomynonA Jan 17 '17 at 4:51

Resolved: Now the tag name is - the name clearly indicates that it is both for composition of functions and relations.

I propose creating tag and making it a synonym of . I think that if composition of functions is important enough to have its own tag, then so is composition of relations. But it would probably be better to have both topics under the same tag.

We definitely have some questions about composition of relations. This tag could make finding such questions easier.

It seems that currently some users are using function-composition tag for such questions. Seeing that there exists tag for composition of relations might encourage some users to use correct tags.

I have just noticed that the tag is used by only 14 questions, while the tag is used by 549 questions. The former tag is also poorly maintained (empty tag wiki). Furthermore, I don't understand what "analytic-functions" could convey that "analyticity" couldn't (maybe that the question is about functions, not manifolds? in this case, we should also create the tags "derivable-functions" and "continuous functions").

Wouldn't you consider appropriate to remove this tag and retag all the 14 questions associated to it with "analyticity"?

• Originally posted here: meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/23029/… (score +3 at the moment) – Martin Sleziak Apr 16 '16 at 8:10
• @MartinSleziak: Should I delete the original and leave only this post? Does this thread have enough visibility? – Alex M. Apr 16 '16 at 8:39
• The name analytic-functions is the better name for a tag; thus if analyticity is really just used for analytic functions we should rather do the converse of what is proposed. – quid Apr 16 '16 at 11:39
• @quid: "The converse" meaning...? – Alex M. Apr 16 '16 at 16:50
• That we should keep analytic-functions and get rid of analyticity (under the assumption that it is really only used for this, I did not check). – quid Apr 16 '16 at 18:11
• I took a quick look, and I think it's safe to merge them. – Bart Michels Jul 22 '16 at 21:05
• Which leaves to the question if we want to make entire-functions a synonym as well. I'd say no, as there's a lot more to say about entire functions than there is about analytic functions in general. – Bart Michels Jul 22 '16 at 21:07

I just realized we have the tags and . This is a bit confusing: up until now I thought the tag was for all kinds of manifolds, smooth, topological, what have you. But on reading the tag wiki it seems that the tag is only for topological manifolds (of which smooth manifolds are admittedly a very special case).

Typically questions about smooth manifolds and questions about topological manifolds are rather different. Would it be possible to either:

Which option would be better? I prefer the first but maybe other people have other opinions on this.

• I believe that almost noone would ask questions about "manifolds" in general (in fact, how would such a question be?). This tag should be eliminated. I suspect that *most( of the questions tagged with it are about smooth manifolds, so renaming it to "topological-manifolds" would complicate life for the volunteers maintaining order here. I would first retag all the questions about topological (or any other kind of) manifolds with the appropriate specific tag and remove "manifolds" from them, and only afterwards would I retag "manifolds" questions as "smooth-manifolds" and finally delete it. – Alex M. Jul 22 '16 at 21:29

Resolved: The tag has been removed from all questions.

The tag has been created recently. Currently it contains only a few questions. Neither the tag-creator nor any other user created the tag-wiki.

As far as I can say from the questions currently tagged with this tag, they are about the topology derived from a metric. In my opinion, the already existing tag can be used for such questions. Probably also could be added to most of them.

So my suggestion is to remove the tag. (Or, if you think it is a better way, make it a synonym of .)

Could we pluralize ?

(Previously requested on: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/19037/tag-management-2015/20037#20037)

How about we pluralize ? Currently the plural form is a synonym of the singular form. But if we agree on pluralized tags, then this should certainly be reversed.

• Are you trying to summon the person with the $$\Huge{\int}$$ – quid Dec 24 '16 at 23:49
• No. I'm trying to summon a person with a sequence $\langle A_\alpha\subseteq\alpha\mid\alpha<\omega_1\rangle$, such that for every $A\subseteq\omega_1$ there is a stationary set of $\alpha$'s such that $A\cap\alpha=A_\alpha$. – Asaf Karagila Dec 24 '16 at 23:56
• Sorry, I don't have any. – quid Dec 25 '16 at 0:10
• That is actually incorrect. You just don't have that on this site... – Asaf Karagila Dec 25 '16 at 8:18
• quid, the above comments are outdated. How about that... – Asaf Karagila Jul 3 '18 at 9:44

I'm not seeing the point of ; is there any good reason to keep this around?

Resolved: Made a synonym of and merged with

Apparently, someone decided to create the tag , and the tag somehow instantly got made into a synonym of it. Considering that we already have tags and (most questions in are apparently about vector fields), I'm wondering if this is a wise decision. Nobody bothered to write a tag excerpt/wiki for , so I don't know what the difference is.

Do you think we need a tag different from and ? Is yes, what is this tag for, precisely, and can you write a tag wiki/excerpt?

• There is (long established) tag called (vector-analysis). (Which at least has tag-excerpt.) This seems to me to be closer to (vector-calculus). – Martin Sleziak Feb 3 '16 at 9:27
• I missed that, thanks @Martin. The tag vector-calculus seems quite useless now. – Najib Idrissi Feb 3 '16 at 9:28
• I created the tag, not necessarily because I felt vector-analysis was inadequate, but because I've never heard vector calculus referred to as "vector analysis" before and didn't think to search for it. (Here by "vector calculus" I mean identities involving $\nabla$, $\nabla \cdot$, $\nabla \times$, Stokes's Theorem, etc). So I think it's fine to merge the two tags, if vector-calculus is left as a synonym. – user7530 Feb 3 '16 at 9:37
• @user7530 Wikipedia begins the article about this topic like this: "Vector calculus (or vector analysis) is...." And Google Books can find several books with vector analysis in the title. So I'd say that probably both of them are commonly used. – Martin Sleziak Feb 3 '16 at 9:44
• I believe that your question should have been written in such a way that its up- and down-votes could be interpreted as answers. In its current form, it is somewhat borderline. If I upvote it, does it mean that I vote for eliminating the tag, or for keeping it? – Alex M. Jul 22 '16 at 21:21
• @AlexM. The issue was solved more than 5 months ago, so if you upvote the post it will probably mean nothing. – Najib Idrissi Jul 23 '16 at 8:27
• @NajibIdrissi: Then given that there are no questions tagged with "vector-calculus" anymore, why not delete this tag? – Alex M. Jul 23 '16 at 8:46
• @AlexM. What advantage would that bring over the current situation (synonym)? – Najib Idrissi Jul 23 '16 at 9:44
• @NajibIdrissi: Oh, my mistake, I looked at the wrong tab: I saw "0 featured questions tagged" and I misread it as "0 questions tagged". Everything is fine, forget about this discussion. Anyway, when I choose to view information regarding a tag, why is the "featured" tab displayed by default? This has always confused me (as you can tell from the pointless discussion above). I find it normal to be shown the "info" tab by default. – Alex M. Jul 23 '16 at 12:07

The tag was created a few days ago.

Do we need a separate tag (compactification)? I suggest creating a synonym $\to$ . (I.e., upvotes on this post mean that a separate tag for compactifications is not needed. Downvotes mean that (compactification) should stay as a separate tag.)

Status: Removed from all questions

Is there a need for the existing tag ? It contains only 6 questions and I don't understand its purpose. Maybe can we merge it into the tag ?

• I think this tag is useless, but I don't see the need for a synonym or merge, since the last question with that tag was asked back in 2012. If enough people agree, I will just go through these questions in two or three times to remove the tag. – wythagoras Aug 15 '16 at 17:58
• Ok, it's a good idea. – paf Aug 15 '16 at 18:15
• @wythagoras go ahead and remove it, I say – 6005 Aug 21 '16 at 10:37

Resolved (for now): All occurrences of the tag have been removed.

The tag has been created recently. Currently, there are two questions using this tag. The tag-info is empty.

Is this tag going to be useful? Are there things which are not covered by already existing tags and ?

If the tag is kept, what type of questions should it be used for? Is there some reasonable description of the usage which could be added to tag-excerpt?

(I have posted in this thread - if we see that this tag requires a more extensive discussion, we can start a separate question.)

• I don't think this tag is not really useful. This is not a philosophy site, after all. A "fallacy" is just wrong proof (or, as you suggest, a fake-proof) in mathematics. – wythagoras Nov 26 '16 at 14:01
• The tag is terrible. Most of the "reasonable use" is in the question which is not even a mathematical logic question, but suits to the Philosophy website, if nothing else. I've removed the tag. – Asaf Karagila Nov 26 '16 at 15:29

There are separate tag and . In the tag-info cor connectedness it is explicitly mentioned that it includes (among other thing) questions about path-connectedness. (Moreover, having too many closely related tags causes problem, since there is a limit at most 5 tags per question.)

For this reason I suggest to make a synonym $\to$ .

• Definitely.${}$ – Bart Michels Dec 11 '16 at 9:37
• I'd favor a merge without synonym. – quid Dec 11 '16 at 12:51

(Maybe) resolved. The conclusion from comments and voting on this post is that either the two tags should be kept separate or that a new post (probably separate question) should be made for a more detailed discussion of these tags.

There is tag, it even has tag excerpt and tag wiki. However, to me this tag seems a bit too narrow to be really useful. I would suggest to make it a synonym of .

What do you think?

EDIT: Rodrigo de Azevedo, quid and wythagoras made a good point in their comments that many questions about convex hulls can be about various algorithms for finding convex hull which is not that close to but much closer to and/or . At least some of the questions currently tagged (convex-hulls) seem to be about algorithms.

EDIT 2: I will add that I consider this argument rather convincing. So I am no longer sure whether they should be indeed synonyms. In fact, I would tend more to leaving them separate. Still in might be useful to clarify this in the tag-info. I have added mention of (computational-geometry) and (discrete-geometry) into the tag-excerpt. Of course, further improvements of the tag-info are welcome.

If there is need for further discussion about this tag, I would suggest a new post (maybe even a separate question). But for now from voting and comments on this one it seems to me that: 1) The synonym did not gain enough support (this post has score +2 with 2 upvotes and no downvotes). 2) Several users gave some reasonable arguments why it might be useful to leave those tag separate. (There are three such comments, yet the users did not downvote.)

• Convex hulls may be closer to computational geometry. – Rodrigo de Azevedo Jul 24 '16 at 19:26
• Since 'covex-set' is a syn of that one, it could make sense. (In complete isolation I would not make it a syn; the question could just as well be about discrete geometry.) – quid Jul 24 '16 at 23:48
• As someone with a bit of background on algorithmics, I think this tag is sufficiently useful to keep, although the questions I have in mind (analysis and proving correctness of algorithm) might be better on CS.SE. – wythagoras Oct 17 '16 at 18:26

I think (fractal-analysis) and (fractals) could be merged.

The first one is barely used & almost all of it's question has the second one as a duplicated tag.

• Although not actually a duplicate (fractal analysis could be considered a subset of fractals), they could definitely be merged. – GEdgar Apr 5 '17 at 13:26
• @GEdgar Do you suggest to send a post to discuss about it? – MR_BD Apr 5 '17 at 13:28
• Yes, I agree they could be merged: "fractal-analysis" could be subsumed into fractals. – Mark McClure Apr 5 '17 at 13:43
• I will add a link to this discussion to chat. I will stress that both above comments suggest merging those two tags, but not making a synonym. I just wanted to state this explicitly. (Although it is implicit in the comments by GEdgar nad Mark McClure - at least if I understood them correctly.) – Martin Sleziak Apr 5 '17 at 13:46
• @GEdgar There is ongoing discussion on meta about the (dimension-theory) tag. This topic seems to be related to fractals, too - and as you are one of the local experts in this area, if you have some comments on the (dimension-theory) tag, we would be grateful for your input in that discussion. – Martin Sleziak Apr 20 '19 at 8:11

I propose deleting the tag. It doesn't add anything useful to the question, and you can't really be an expert on questions about lotteries.

The tags and should probably also need some looking into.

Usually questions with these tags just turn out to be questions. Also, I believe they are considered "meta-tags."

Note: There is a separate question about the tag here.

I think there is a need for a tag (or just ).

I quite often ask questions here that relate to the Perron-Frobenius theorem in one way or another. I am also interested in reading questions and answers relating to it.

The Perron-Frobenius theorem, and the surrounding theory regarding matrices with non-negative elements, is such a large part of linear algebra that it would seem well worth having a tag for it.

• Perron-Frobenius theory also applies to the setting of unbounded operators, so I would recommend keeping the tag description vague. – Jonas Dahlbæk May 16 '17 at 8:42

What is the tag for? Half of the questions seem to be about differential algebras (i.e. algebras over a field equipped with a differential), while the other half is about differential algebraic equations (i.e. equations that involve algebraic equations and differential equations at the same time).

Differential algebras appear everywhere in algebraic topology and homological algebra, and I think they deserve a tag. "diff-algebraic-eqns" or something similar could be used for differential algebraic equations.

• I would expect the question in that tag to be about differential algebra and differential Galois theory. For example, this question is tagged according to this interpretation of the tag. – Martin Sleziak Apr 28 '16 at 7:56
• Oh. It seems that "differential algebra" is even more overloaded than I thought... Maybe "dg-algebras" (it's rare for differential algebras not to be graded anyway), "differential-algebra" for differential Galois theory, and "diff-algebraic-eqns" for differential algebraic equations? I don't know. – Najib Idrissi Apr 28 '16 at 7:57
• I do not know much about these topics. But if I read intro of the Wikipedia article I see that they first mention what differential algebras/fields/rings (as structures) are. Then they say that: "Differential algebra refers also to the area of mathematics consisting in the study of these algebraic objects and their use for an algebraic study of the differential equations." So based on this it seems that questions about differential algebras (as objects) and questions from differential algebra (as an area) could be in the same tag. – Martin Sleziak Apr 28 '16 at 8:30
• Well my concern is that people who are interested in DGAs in the context of algebraic topology / homological algebra are often not very interested in differential equations, while people interested in differential equations are probably not very interested in minimal models, derived functors, dg-categories and whatnot. It takes a completely different skillset to answer these two questions: math.stackexchange.com/q/295387 math.stackexchange.com/q/1749579 (I can answer the first, but I hardly understand what the second is about, for example). – Najib Idrissi Apr 28 '16 at 9:24
• We have several tags where the name of the tag is used in two different areas of mathematics in (slightly or completely) different meaning and we are using them in that way. So that is a possibility, too. My main suggestion is to make a separate question on meta about this tag. 1) There are several possible ways how to resolve this. Posting them an answers would allow us to vote on them. 2) In that way there is a better chance that some users knowledgeable of these areas will notice the question. – Martin Sleziak May 8 '16 at 3:30

I suggest creating tag for questions related to problems about lattice paths in combinatorics.

Currently some of such questions are tagged integer-lattices+combinatorics, which might be not optimal. (Although formally such question is about a lattice points of some lattice, most frequently two-dimensional, I think that combinatorial problems about lattice paths are different enough to be distinguished by a separate tag.)

Currently there are 50 questions using combination of these two tags. We probably have more questions about this topic. Searching for [combinatorics] lattice is:q returns 241 questions.

• Yes, definitely. – Bart Michels Nov 28 '16 at 8:53

The tags and describe the same thing. I think (unit-of-measure) should become a synonym of (dimensional-analysis). It has 124 posts at the moment. I don't know if those should be retagged.

For what it's worth, I just forcefully removed the tag from all the 21 questions that had it. Sorry about the editing spree.

All the questions with that tag were from October or November, so it was apparently recreated by someone a bit over a month ago. I mostly either replaced the tag with , or removed it altogether. Not surprisingly, in several cases other tagging needed to be fixed as well.

It is morally certain that somebody will try to recreate that tag later. One possibility would be to allow it, and make it synonomous to just like was. May not fit all the cases, but that might work. What do you folks think?

• I agree $\ \ \$ – suomynonA Jan 16 '17 at 4:54

The tag is a synonym of . I think this is not good as it leads to questions that are not at all about decimal expansion to be tagged as such.

Instead this tag should likely be a synonym of , in any case the synonym should be removed (or maybe reversed).

Possibly should also be a synonym of , yet this is not my main concern.

Resolved The synonym has been approved.

A shout-out to the suggestion that (span) becomes a synonym of (linear-algebra): there is only one vote need left (you can vote here). Anyone with 2,500+ rep and a score of 5 in can vote. (I believe plenty of users meet this criterion, hopefully at least one will see this.)

• @wythagoras I am not sure whether removing resolved posts is really a good idea. (As I mentioned in chat.) Although I will admit that in cases like this I do not see much of a problem, since there is at least one previous post about the issue. I am objecting just to general principle that any resolved post should be removed. – Martin Sleziak Jan 8 '16 at 10:55

I've found the tag but no tag.

• That's because it's contained in sequences-and-series. – user296602 Jul 30 '16 at 2:57
• And it could be added that we have (infinite-product) and (products) for infinite/finite products. We also have (sequences-and-series) and (summation) for infinite/finite sums. – Martin Sleziak Jul 30 '16 at 5:01
• Seems odd that ("products" and "summation") tags and yet ("infinite-product" and yet "sequences-and-series"). "sequences and series" seems just as related to all 3 other tags. – alan2here Jul 30 '16 at 14:30
• @alan2here To be honest I am not sure what are you trying to say in your last comments. BTW infinite-series is a synonym of sequences-and-series. If the tag-info for sequences-and-series does not explain clearly enough that this tag is for infinite sums (i.e., series), then perhaps the formulation of the tag-excerpt and tag-wiki should be clarified. – Martin Sleziak Jul 31 '16 at 7:13

What is ? And are the 11 questions currently tagged under it even fit the tag? It seems like a haphazard collection of questions to me.

• The problem is roughly speaking to reconstruct an image form projections. This is useful for medical imaging etc. see for example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_tomography I only checked the list briefly but it does not look that bad to me. Radon transform is an important key word there, likely integral geometry too, not sure; – quid Sep 20 '16 at 9:58

Do we really need a tag? I mean, sure, it's a thing. But is it something substantial enough to merit a tag?

• Personally, I think it might be a useful tag. It is an interesting topic and the number of questions about this seems to be non-negligible. Probably it will typically accompanied by other tags (such as linear-algebra, eigenvalues, matrices, markov-process, algorithms - depending ot the focus question. – Martin Sleziak Oct 6 '16 at 12:27

We have a new tag, . I don't know much about algebraic geometry, so I'm asking someone else to make an argument of its usefulness.

There is already a tag, which could serve as a master tag for a synonym; or perhaps one of the other transcendence-related tags?

(Feel free to edit this with better suggestions.)

I find the tag unnecessary, but if one wants to keep it then at least keep it as hensel-lemma.

• In accordance with greens-theorem, greens-function, stokes-theorem, goldbachs-conjecture, we should keep the 's'. – Bart Michels Nov 28 '16 at 8:58
• @barto Yeah, more stupid tags is better than one. (Btw, AFAIK the name of Stokes is Stokes, not Stoke, so one example doesn't fit.) – user26857 Nov 28 '16 at 9:24
• Actually I think the tag hensels-lemma isn't so bad. It encompasses questions that are about lifting solutions to congruences. As with linear-diophantine-eqns most of the questions will be very similar, but one can think of variations on the problem that make unique questions. – Bart Michels Nov 28 '16 at 21:08

Some time ago the tag has been created, since then it grew 152 questions.

However, a few years ago we had we had this discussion: How do we tag questions on maximizing/minimizing functions? The result was that we should use . As a result, several tags about maxima and minima already are synonyms of optimization; namely , , and .

I do not see any reason why should be treated differently than the remaining tags mentioned above. Which is why I suggested a synonym relatively soon after the tag was created. Since 5 months passed and the tags are still not synonyms, I decided to mention this on meta. (Either this will help to get the votes needed to approve the synonym. Or if there are now some reasons why the two tags should be kept separate, we have here place where to discuss it.)

• I am not sure it's a good idea to have this synonym. The point is that there are plenty users that need to find (local) maxima or minima of some function (in a calculus context), Now one could shoe-horn this into being a question about optimization, but I am quite doubtful this is a good idea. Instead I'd keep this, and syn max-min with as well as extrema, the -ation variants can stay syns of optimization. – quid Dec 9 '16 at 20:36
• I get your point. I still think that (maxima-minima) should be treated the same way as (max-min) or extrema. (Either all of them are synonyms, or neither is.) I left a bit more detailed comments in our discussion in tagging chatroom. – Martin Sleziak Dec 10 '16 at 3:36

Some time ago the tag was created. But at the time we already had tag for the same purpose. The tag-excerpt for product-space says: "For questions about the structure of product space, in the context of topology or measure theory for example. Use other tags to indicate the context." (Tag-wiki is empty.)

However, it seems not that surprising that some users might be tempted to created tag, especially if they are not aware about the tag. So I suggested a synonym $\to$ . If we have synonym, this will prevent users from creating the same tag again (which leads to the situation that we have two separate tags for the same purpose - at least if we agree that (product-space) tag should be used in the way described in the tag-wiki.

I would like to hear opinions of other users on this synonym. And users with score at least 5 in tag can also vote on the synonym here.

• This is probably less important, but it is also natural to ask whether (product-space) should be pluralized. I.e., whether we should call it (product-spaces) instead. – Martin Sleziak Dec 5 '16 at 4:13
• It's not really my field or my fields, but is product-space a useful tag? Mostly it seems like topology with a couple other questions there. I think to have a tag for topology on product spaces can be useful, but to mix all kinds of product spaces, seems a bit like "subspaces." – quid Dec 5 '16 at 21:27
• @quid I do my best to help following the existing tag-excerpt and using this tag only in context of topology and measure theory. If we decide to have separate tag only for topological products, it should probably be discussed in separate post. – Martin Sleziak Dec 5 '16 at 22:52
• The (product-space) tag was around in this form for some time, the tag excerpt was created in 2013. I did not find any discussion on meta mentioning this tag before 2015: What should be in (products) tag?. Around the same time it was also mentioned in chat, see here and here. – Martin Sleziak Dec 5 '16 at 22:52
• "following the existing tag-excerpt and using this tag only in context of topology and measure theory" (my emphasis) While likely a good idea, that's not what the description says. It says "the structure of product space, in the context of topology or measure theory for example." (my emphasis) – quid Dec 5 '16 at 23:02
• I agree with your last comment. And certainly questions about product metric or product of normed spaces fall under the tag description. Having this tag is probably not ideal, but it is certainly better than having in the same tag, for example, matrix product, categorical product, product of numbers. Whether it would be useful to divide (product-spaces) into smaller tags, I am not entirely sure. BTW if a longer discussion about this is needed, we can take it to chat. – Martin Sleziak Dec 5 '16 at 23:26

Resolved: The tags have been removed.

The tags , and have been created not so long ago (they are still in the list of new tags.) A natural question is what to do with these tags.

So far the questions about these topics were typically tagged and/or .

Considering that we have many questions about these topics, I guess that these tags might improve searching. So I would be in favor of keeping these tags. (I.e., downvotes on this post should be interpreted "these tags should be removed".)

The only disadvantage I see that some questions will have too many tags as a result of this. (For a questions about injective functions, the tags , and would be suitable, which already takes three of five possible slots.) However, I think that these tags will be mostly used for basic questions, so probably not many additional tags will be needed.

Of course, if we keep the tags, we will have to add them at least to some older posts. But I think that it will be not that difficult to add the tags gradually at least to the most important ones. I guess that such questions can be found among frequent questions tagged functions and maybe to a lesser extent among frequent questions tagged elementary-set-theory

At the moment, there are only a few questions having these tags. So if the decision will be to remove the tags, it would not be a big problem. (Only a few posts will be bumped.)

A third option would be make these tags a synonym of some existing tag. This would prevent creating the tags repeatedly again and again. But if we choose this possibility, I am not entirely sure what tag should be chosen as a synonym. If I had to select one, I would probably go with .

• 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. – Asaf Karagila Jul 9 '16 at 7:04
• I have also pinged the tag creator to let them know about this thread. – Martin Sleziak Jul 9 '16 at 7:44
• 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. – Asaf Karagila Jul 9 '16 at 9:47
• @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). – Martin Sleziak Jul 9 '16 at 10:06
• I guess we can wait a couple of days, at least after the weekend, before concluding that nobody else cares enough to weigh in. :-) – Asaf Karagila Jul 9 '16 at 10:07
• 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,) – Martin Sleziak Jul 9 '16 at 10:25
• That is an option. Although truth be told, I'm not a huge fan of the functions tag in general. – Asaf Karagila Jul 9 '16 at 10:30
• 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. – Asaf Karagila Jul 12 '16 at 5:02