18
$\begingroup$

I have added the tag and begun tagging the numerous questions that should have it. Though this is a highly advanced topic usually more suitable on MathOverflow, Schubert calculus questions certainly do get asked. Those who frequent MathOverflow often go on this site as well and will often be able to answer such questions. I myself have asked a Schubert calculus question on this site and gotten an answer from exactly one of the few experts who needed to see my question.

As is often said, no topic is too elementary or too advanced for this site, it's just a matter of the audience you are expecting to read your question. Those studying elementary Schubert calculus at the graduate or undergraduate level may find it more appropriate to ask here as their work is not research level, though I don't think any Schubert calculus question would be turned away on MathOverflow.

Willing to entertain any objections but I doubt anyone will find reason to object.

Any assistance in tagging would of course be welcome.

Note: Based on Martin Sleziak's suggestion, I haven't done any tagging since that first day. Feedback seems to be mostly positive if you go by upvotes vs. downvotes. Not sure if I should be waiting for some sort of signal.

I will also note that this tag was used today independently of my tagging efforts. Not sure if the user saw the meta post (which is likely because it was featured for awhile), but it may lend some credibility to its usefulness: Schubert Cell Structure for some variety with prescribed bilinear form. The user had a Schubert calculus question anyway, and made use of the new tag.

Further note: I have resumed tagging questions as it seems the community approves. The only vocal objection seemed to be that I created the tag before asking the question, not a particular argument against the tag itself.

$\endgroup$
19
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Just my usual advice. Limit yourself to bumping three stale questions per day. So as not to swamp the "first page" that many users see when they enter math.se $\endgroup$
    – GEdgar
    Commented Dec 25, 2018 at 13:40
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @GEdgar I'll do that if that's the consensus, but that seems like a rather low limit. The front page is completely replaced within a couple of hours. Perhaps three questions every four hours? Don't want to rock the boat on this because it's not terribly important, just would rather not be spending weeks doing this and eventually forget and leave it undone. $\endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Commented Dec 25, 2018 at 13:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MattSamuel Regarding the question how much old questions to bump, there is this thread: How much bumping is too much? (Admittedly, it is rather old and the site has rather low traffic at the time.) The "3 old questions per day" rule seems to be from MathOverflow:Do we have an unofficial quota on how many old questions one should bump for minor edits in a single day? $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Dec 25, 2018 at 17:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ However, there is a separate issue to leave some time for the community to respond how they feel about the new tag - so that the questions don't have to be bumped again when the tag is being removed. See for example the discussion here: Limit for number of questions where tag can be added by tag-creator soon after the creation of tag or Should every new tag be discussed on meta before creation? (and other posts linked to those two). $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Dec 25, 2018 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You picked a good day to begin this! But, low traffic also means that your edits will sit on the front page a bit longer than they might otherwise. As long as the "sprees" only involve fiveish posts you'll be fine, I think. I used to give the suggestion of a single tagging spree per day, but a few hours break may be enough. The disruption is then much lower. $\endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Commented Dec 25, 2018 at 17:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ And thank you for creating a tag wiki! $\endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Commented Dec 25, 2018 at 17:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I will at least mention that tag-related issues can also be discussed in the tagging chatroom. (Although I am not sure whether there is much to be added to the stuff already mentioned in the comments.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Dec 25, 2018 at 17:46
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I'd like to emphasize Martin Sleziak's comment: "However, there is a separate issue to leave some time [before creating a new tag, and immediately proceeding to tag some two dozen or more questions using the new tag] for the community to respond how they feel about the new tag." [Brackets mine.] You pre-empted any community input prior to acting on your own and immediately began modifying questions, posting here on meta only after having created the tag and started retagging. Next time, post here first, prior to tag creation and retagging. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Commented Dec 25, 2018 at 20:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If every user created a tag they believe should exist on this site, and proceeded to retag two dozen questions, and only then, inform other users about this on meta, it would be exceedingly detrimental to this site (all the bumping on main), and to the tagging system. Please consult other users before creating a new tag and retagging on your own. There is also the tagging chatroom, where you can get some initial feedback, prior to taking action. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Commented Dec 25, 2018 at 20:30
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @amWhy Agreed. But I recommend you look at the questions i already tagged, then search for "Schubert" and see how many similar questions come up that aren't tagged. That should be a bit more convincing. $\endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Commented Dec 25, 2018 at 20:50
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ According to your most recent argument, I'll go ahead and create a tag: "disc-method" (247 questions deal with it), and "shell-method" (550 questions). Maybe also I should create a tag "substitution", since there are 61,755 results using that term. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Commented Dec 25, 2018 at 21:02
  • 21
    $\begingroup$ @amWhy If you say so. I'm not entirely sure how this new tag harms you or why you're arguing with me about it. Rest assured I'm no longer going to attempt to convince you. If you want to spend your time deleting it, go ahead. I can't stop you. $\endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Commented Dec 25, 2018 at 21:08
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ @Matt The tag seems fine and reasonably useful. $\endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Commented Dec 27, 2018 at 22:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AndrésE.Caicedo What about expanding your comment a bit and posting it as answer? If nothing else, votes on that answer would count as some kind of feedback. (Also I can understand that many users prefer not to vote one way or the other - considering the fact that probably only small percentage of the users of this site know the discussed area.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Dec 28, 2018 at 15:45
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I agree it seems fine. $\endgroup$
    – user98602
    Commented Dec 30, 2018 at 5:50

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

I'll echo Andrés' comment above as an answer, "The tag seems fine and reasonably useful", and as Martin suggested I'll expand on why.

"Grassmannian" is currently tagged 213 times. Schubert calculus is intimately related to Grassmannians and something like 1 in 5 "Grassmannian" tagged posts should also be tagged "Schubert calculus". Add in all the other things related to Schubert calculus (Chow rings, partial flag manifolds, quantum cohomology, Schubert polynomials, Littlewood--Richardson rules, ...) and you have plenty of questions that should reasonably use the tag.

$\endgroup$
13
$\begingroup$

There have been two comments of approval on this, and far more upvotes than downvotes, so I say go ahead!

(In case you didn't check, I'm actually the OP. I'm posting this answer as a record of the feedback. Additionally, you can vote on this answer to express your opinion.)

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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