11
$\begingroup$

What is the point of tag? The description says

For questions concerning troubles with a text one is reading. Typos and interpretation issues are also pertinent. Please be sure to mention the source you are using and to quote the original text to make your question more precise.

This seems to be a "meta" tag. Only 50 questions are tagged that, most by one user. Should this tag exist?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Some discussions related to this tag can be found in comments to this question and this answer. See also this chat transcript, where most of the relevant comments are collected. But a separate discussion about this tag is certainly warranted. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Feb 28 '18 at 2:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I believe the tag may have value (not sure), but that name seems very suboptimal. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Feb 28 '18 at 7:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Without knowing the excerpt beforehand, [math-review] seems like a request to review test/examination results for me... perhaps [literature-clarification] or [textbook-clarification] might be better? $\endgroup$ – Andrew T. Mar 1 '18 at 2:31
11
$\begingroup$

No it should not exist as it is too broad and unspecific to be useful. Somehow it continued to exist for a while, but I think it should be put to rest.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I intuitively feel that this tag shouldn't exist, but I don't agree with this reasoning. This tag seems as broad and unspecific as proof-verification, reference-request and soft-question. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Feb 28 '18 at 14:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Aloizio: I think that with the exception of the last one, these are broad and unspecific, but very clear as to their usage. The soft question is a remnant of old times, which would not have passed through today's system, but it's a traditional relaxing of the math community, so we keep up at it. The math review one, just seems... useless. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Feb 28 '18 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf I was thinking about this earlier today, and I think that one good metric to see the usefulness of a tag would be if it is worthy of "favoriting". I don't see anyone putting a tag such as the described in this post as favorite, or following it whatsoever. I can see how people can favorite the tags I mentioned, however (even soft-question). I believe this tag could properly describe a significant part of a question, but, as you and quid put, it is not a very useful description other than being a description. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 2 '18 at 3:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Aloizio: I not fully agree with that. There are many useless tags which [would] have people following them. I do agree, however, that a tag without any potential followers is probably useless. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 2 '18 at 19:28
2
$\begingroup$

I also cannot discern what the "math-review" tag is intended to cover. While those three tags (proof-verification, reference-request, and soft-question) mentioned by @AloizioMacedo may be broad (tags do generally have more breadth than individual Questions, by their nature), I think I have a pretty good handle on their "specific" meaning and application.

Tag "math-review" suggests a variety of things to me (such as the published Mathematical Reviews, often used as a proxy for publications that may be inaccessible) that are not reflected in the use or wiki summary of the tag. So it is unclear to me whether there is a valid need that this tag tried to address, but clarity is needed to make a tag useful.

Or as Aloizio comments below, it might be worthwhile as a tag if not for the bad tag name and a bad tag wiki!

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your argument seems to me as a result of the bad naming and description of the tag, not of the tag per se. (I agree completely with your argument. I just mean that I don't think it answers the question of Zachary directly) $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 2 '18 at 3:18
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I tried to make my reply more explicit. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Mar 2 '18 at 5:28

You must log in to answer this question.