19
$\begingroup$

New year, new tag management thread.

Rules of the game are basically the same:

  • Post your suggestion as an answer here if you see
    • 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;
  • Upvote/downvote/comment as your agree/disagree with suggestions, so please post different suggestions in separate answers;
  • Wait a couple of days before implementing a suggestion.
  • After the problem described in an answer is resolved, please edit it to say so.
  • If your tag suggestion exists in a separate question, please provide a link to the question in your suggestion.

See also:

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.

$\endgroup$
0

41 Answers 41

Reset to default
1
2
2
$\begingroup$

Proposal: rename the synonym "laplaces-equation" to "laplace-equation" or to ''laplace's-equation''.

laplaces-equationis a synonym of harmonic-functions.

I think we should have remove the s from laplaces-equation or give an Apostrophe before s (i.e., 's) .

There is nothing called laplaces-equation rather we can called it laplace's-equation or simply "laplace-equation".

Want suitable opinion about my proposal.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think that putting an apostrophe is not possible for technical reasons. Let me try : if we type [tag:laplace's-equation] we get as a result [tag:laplace's-equation], but if instead we type [tag:laplaces-equation] we get as a result laplaces-equation. $\endgroup$
    – Arnaud D.
    Sep 11, 2019 at 8:12
  • $\begingroup$ I've also tried creating a tag with an apostrophe in the name, and it was treated as two words. So laplace's-equation seems impossible to create. Maybe laplace-equation would be better, but I'm not sure it's really worth changing a tag that's only a synonym anyway... $\endgroup$
    – Arnaud D.
    Sep 11, 2019 at 8:17
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry @Arnaud D. ~~I just proposed to rename the phrase, not to create any tag. $\endgroup$
    – nmasanta
    Sep 11, 2019 at 8:19
  • $\begingroup$ But the problem is the same : you can't have apostrophes in tag names (as far as I know) so we can't rename the tag with laplace's-equation. $\endgroup$
    – Arnaud D.
    Sep 11, 2019 at 8:25
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, if so, then we can rename it as laplace-equation. I think it doesn't make sense to have one extra character s. $\endgroup$
    – nmasanta
    Sep 11, 2019 at 8:30
1
$\begingroup$

Proposal: rename to

First off, a walk that traverses every edge of a graph is generally not a path but a trail. Second, when this situation occurs, it is the graph that is described as Eulerian and not the walk (at least IME).

While I'm here, I may as well add that the tag is used to discuss Euler circuits (not to be confused with the again incorrect Euler cycles). If we were decide to go with then we may as well also change to for two of the three above reasons.

I just read a wearying debate on Wikipedia about whether they should rename their page from "Eulerian path". The opponents claimed that computer scientists misuse mathematical language all the time and "path" beats "trail" in Google Fight. The proponents' claim that it's wrong did not carry the day. As a community of mathematicians, I wonder if we might weight the debate differently.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Rename to .

Although Lothar Collatz is most known for the $3x+1$ problem (the Collatz Conjecture), I don’t think their names should be used interchangeably. Furthermore, the latter tag has a more informative name.

$\endgroup$
2
0
$\begingroup$

Should we have a tag?

We have quite a few related questions that are currently spread across different nearby tags (such as , , and ) but no one tag to unite them.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Here is a similar search restricted to questions, it gives 158 results at the moment. BTW I have asked Michael Greinecker about this tag proposal in chat, so far I got no response. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Aug 18, 2019 at 6:58
0
$\begingroup$

Proposal: I think there is no requirement to place the new tag named simplex-method, which has been created by an user few days ago and already $2$ questions are added here. Since there is already a tag named linear-programming and this contains many methods like the simplex method, dual-simplex-method, graphical method etc. etc..

I want a suitable opinion about my proposal.

Thank you.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I will add that the tag was created a few days ago, on August 31. It seems that some questions about the simplex method are tagged simplex+linear-programming. I will point out that there also is a separate tag (two-phase-simplex) for the the two phase simplex method. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Sep 6, 2019 at 8:12
  • $\begingroup$ So what you think, is it alright ? $\endgroup$
    – nmasanta
    Sep 6, 2019 at 8:33
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Actually, I would probably a bit more in favor of the tag. (I have mentioned possibility of creating this tag in chat quite a long time ago but I got no response - so it's good that you brought this up on meta, it's more likely that this gets some feedback here.) It would be good to hear from the people who are active in the (linear-programming) tag, they are in the best position to judge whether this tag might be useful.. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Sep 6, 2019 at 8:40
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I agree with you. Let's see what the others say. $\endgroup$
    – nmasanta
    Sep 6, 2019 at 8:43
0
$\begingroup$

Proposal: rename quasiperiodic-functions to quasiperiodicity.

Reason: posts tagged quasiperiodic-functions may also be tagged quasiperiodicity, but the reverse is not always true (ie. posts on quasiperiodic tiling or oscillations). Because none of these topics get much attention, there should be one tag to cover all of them.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Of course, since at the moment there are only a few questions in this newly created tag, this could be done manually simply by removing (quasiperdiodic-functions) and adding (quasiperiodicity) to those posts. (In that way you would bump the seven posts which have that tag at the moment - which is not that terrible.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Dec 5, 2019 at 10:42
  • $\begingroup$ BTW in posts on Stack Exchange you can also use the syntax [tag:tagname] such as [tag:quasiperiodic-functions] or [tag:quasiperiodicity]. This will change a bit how the tag looks in the post and also it will be possible to click on it to get the list of questions with that tag. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Dec 5, 2019 at 10:43
-1
$\begingroup$

Proposal: create "visualisation" for

The tag synonym instructions suggest the following.

If you know of common, alternate spellings or phrasings for this tag, add them here so we can automatically correct them in the future. For example, suggest “bike” as a synonym for bicycle, or “sock” for socks.

In , we use "visualisation" instead of . French regular verbs end more commonly in "-ser" then in "-zer". Searching "visualization" on French.SE gives you nothing. Since French and English develop independently and interdependently, both spellings appear in the Anglo-Saxon world. Thus, "visualisation" can be qualified as an alternate spelling of .

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't think it's really worth creating French version of every tag... On the other hand, I think this spelling is sometimes used in British English, so it could be useful. $\endgroup$
    – Arnaud D.
    Feb 16, 2019 at 23:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Once one has types 'visuali' the system will propose the tag. Not needed. Plus, what about opitimiz|sation, and all its variations. Parametriz|sation etc. $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Feb 25, 2019 at 19:25
-1
$\begingroup$

Proposal: rename to on main site.

Reasons:

  1. I believe it is the correct spelling, barring the ü.

(The only reason I can see why the tag might be spelled as it is is because the ü may change to a ue when it loses the accent, but I do not think this is the case.)

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is perhaps worth pointing out that at the moment both tags exist, although (teichmuller-theory) was created only recently. Perhaps creating a tag synonym would be a reasonable solution. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Dec 24, 2019 at 6:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ My understanding is that the procedure for dealing with a German umlaut in a system where umlauts are not possible is to replace the letter with a digraph ending in "e". Thus ü $\to$ ue. As such, the tag teichmueller-theory is, I think, correct. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Dec 24, 2019 at 15:31
  • $\begingroup$ OP's proposal is consistent with math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/21349 $\endgroup$
    – Bart Michels
    Dec 28, 2019 at 10:34
-2
$\begingroup$

Proposal: create "geometry-without-trigonometry" tag

Similar to the limits-without-lhopital tag, we should have a geometry-without-trigonometry tag. Many times the OP posts a problem hoping to find an "elementary" solution but the answers use trigonometry. The OP may understand trigonometry but wants a pure geometrical solution or he may be in middle school and have no idea what is trigonometry.

The tag geometry-without-trigonometry will hopefully let us avoid such problems just like limits-without-lhopital did.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Some comments on this can be found under the post: The geometry-without-trigonometry tag. (It is now closed - in case the questions gets deleted at some point, the most relevant comment is also saved in the tagging chatroom.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Jun 24, 2019 at 5:22
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak No one commented on that post except xander. $\endgroup$
    – user5402
    Jun 24, 2019 at 14:48
-3
$\begingroup$

Proposal: create tag "inverse-fourier"

I think there should be a tag named inverse-fourier which represents mainly the inverse fourier transform. I know there is a tag named fourier-transform but inverse fourier transform is also an important area of research. It has many application too.

I want a suitable discussion about that. If everything goes alright, then I want to create the tag named inverse-fourier . Thank you for your time.

Note: There is a tag named inverselaplace which deal with questions relating to inverse Laplace transform.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think that likely something should be done (either follow your proposal or remove inverselaplace). It seems inconsistent to treat Fourier and Laplace differently. (Except if there is an intrinsic reason that escapes me.) $\endgroup$
    – quid Mod
    Nov 30, 2019 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ I strongly agree with you @quid $\endgroup$
    – nmasanta
    Nov 30, 2019 at 17:19
-6
$\begingroup$

Update : the tag has been merged with .

Proposal: Keep tag for questions related to formulas found specifically in the book Table of Integrals, Series, and Products.

There are currently about 120 questions about formulas found in the above book, so I have tagged some of these questions with .

Although some people have pointed out that this type of meta-tag is frowned upon, I still believe that it provides added value.

$\endgroup$
5
1
2

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