2
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

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"?

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Alex M., Community♦ Apr 16 '16 at 6:45

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • $\begingroup$ I'd say it's a candidate for a tag-merge. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer♦ Apr 15 '16 at 21:39
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielFischer: Yes, that is what I meant. Let's see what the others say. $\endgroup$ – Alex M. Apr 15 '16 at 21:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd suggest posting this in the tag management thread, rather than a separate post. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Apr 15 '16 at 22:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Now posted here: meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/22348/tag-management-2016/… $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Apr 16 '16 at 8:54
  • $\begingroup$ @T.Bongers I am not sure whether this is the best thing to do - since the post already existed (and already had some votes). In any case, I at least I linked the two posts to each other. (My general rule of thumb is that if it seems likely that the proposal will need longer discussion, then it is certainly better to post a separate question. As another users told me in chat, there was a recent discussion on meta.SO asking to which extent such long thread are useful.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Apr 16 '16 at 8:59
  • $\begingroup$ In any case, my comments digressed from the topic of the original post. If we want to have some further discussion on this, let's continue in chat. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Apr 16 '16 at 9:00
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak Fair enough, when I made the comment I didn't expect that this suggestion would need too much discussion. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Apr 16 '16 at 16:36