17
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Even though we have a tag management thread, it's worth pointing out that in some cases it might be better to have a separate question. (Typically when a longer discussion is needed and several possible answers are expected. Answers to a question provide more space for a more detailed discussion than comments under an answer in this thread.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 6, 2020 at 1:19

36 Answers 36

Reset to default
1
2
-5
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Rename to geometry-probability.

This is to make it distinct from questions about geometric random variables.

$\endgroup$
-5
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Create the tag .

There are currently around 5,000 questions that come up when searching "cosets". It's a central concept in elementary group theory and seems too important and distinct from other concepts to not have its own tag.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'll just mention that the tag (cosets) and (coset) were created and removed several times in the past. Considering this, bringing up the tag on meta seems like a good idea. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 4:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure that this useful. Practically any question about groups will use cosets in a crucial way, so it won't help much in categorization, in my opinion. $\endgroup$
    – user279515
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 5:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ BTW how did you get 7000 questions. When searching for cosets is:q I get 2864 questions. Searching for cosets in all posts gives 6960 posts - but that includes answers, some of them might be to the same question. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 6:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If we're looking an the question where the word coset is in the text of the question or in the text of some answer, I got 4836 questions. (Assuming that I did not make a mistake in the linked SEDE query.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 6:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak Thanks for that! I didn't think that my search included answers as well. $\endgroup$
    – N. Bar
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 13:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Brahadeesh Not necessarily. You can certainly prove many properties of groups without even mentioning cosets. $\endgroup$
    – N. Bar
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 14:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @N.Bar You’re right, of course. May I rephrase? I don’t see the value of having a [cosets] tag for categorization purposes — for instance, what advantage would I get by following / ignoring this tag? I don’t think one would either seek out or avoid questions about cosets. They just happen to be ubiquitous in group theory, no doubt, but the concept perhaps does not warrant a tag of its own. $\endgroup$
    – user279515
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 14:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Brahadeesh Hmm. That certainly is a valid point. But, in a search of questions tagged group theory excluding the word "cosets," we get around 37,000 results. Granted, many of these may still utilize cosets and their properties, but there is still a significant difference between the number of questions. $\endgroup$
    – N. Bar
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 14:22
-5
$\begingroup$

Proposal tag created.

The pqr method is a very useful method for the proof of polynomial inequalities with three variables. This tag should be used for questions that could be tackled with this method, or questions about the method itself.

So I think it should be created.

I'm sorry, my English is something bad$,$ not easy to describe about it.

$\endgroup$
1
-6
$\begingroup$

Proposal: $\rightarrow$

Following a suggestion posted here as a comment, I suggest that we rename the epsilon-delta tag as and that becomes a synonym for that tag.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ At first I thought this is a good idea. Yet if somebody would ask something like: "Use the epsilon-delta definition of continuity to prove directly that $x \mapsto x^2$ is a continuous function on $\mathbb{R}$." then the former seems natural as tag yet the latter maybe not so much. Thus, I am now a bit on the fence about this. $\endgroup$
    – quid
    Commented Apr 24, 2020 at 10:02
-7
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Create tag xor

xor, also known as symmetric difference, is a logical operator for which we have no separate name in English -- for example, when we say "do you want ice cream, or do you want cake", we mean xor but we say or. Since for many people, this is the first new logical operator they learn (since they already understand and, or, and not), various issues therefore arise. These range from:

  • Explain how xor works.

  • How do you xor with 3 or more items (saying "Do you want ice cream, cake, or pudding?" means choose 1, but in xor of three items, you either choose one, or you take all three -- but not just two).

  • How do you phrase xor best when writing (many notations exist).

  • Understanding bit-wise xor in computer science.

  • Expressing xor in terms of more simple operators.

I could go on. Questions regarding xor itself.

There are hundreds of posts asking about properties of xor and how it works, many of them with a single tag of boolean-algebra or logic or propositional-calculus. I believe it deserves its own tag.

I didn't know we had to get approval for this in advance, so I already re-tagged some questions; but, I'd be willing to undo my edits if we decided not to add it.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't think this is a particularly useful tag. Searching for XOR will lead you to the questions about XOR. So it has no particular value in helping search and classify questions about XOR. It also sets a precedent for tags for other logical operators (which in that case, should just be the one tag logical-operators or some variant thereof). $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Sep 27, 2020 at 12:33
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure why you say xor is not associative. It certainly is. $\endgroup$
    – Matt Samuel
    Commented Sep 27, 2020 at 13:19
  • $\begingroup$ @MattSamuel Thanks, the reason I was thinking turned out a little more nuanced. $\endgroup$
    – Alex
    Commented Sep 27, 2020 at 13:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would also refrain from creating a new tag and immediately going on a retagging spree while applying it to a bunch of questions. If it doesn't merit community approval, you've done a lot of unnecessary work, and doing so may replace a relevant fifth tag. $\endgroup$
    – Integrand
    Commented Sep 28, 2020 at 2:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just a small reminder: in case you decide to undo the edits, make sure you do it slowly so that the home page won't be flooded with those questions. $\endgroup$
    – YuiTo Cheng
    Commented Sep 28, 2020 at 11:52
-9
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Merge and tags.

The idea behind having two tags is to divide basic and advanced probability questions, but it does not work and I believe it couldn't work. It is better to have single tag and use additional tags like , , etc.

PS: Downvotes show that is like a suitcase without a handle: hard to carry but a pity to throw away.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Older related posts: About [probability-theory] tag and The tags (probability) and (probability-theory). As you said, both tag-info and a related comment template suggest to keep them separate. I have tried to summarize this also in the tagging chatroom. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 8, 2020 at 7:24
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding the recent edit, it is probably possible to maintain a pair of such tags - but for that some users who will follow the tag will be needed. For example, (elementary-set-theory) and (set-theory) are in quite good shape since there are users who follow them very closely and retag the questions when needed. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 9, 2020 at 8:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Do you think that renaming the tag to (elementary-probability) would it make more likely that people would be using the tags correctly (i.e., in the way they are described in the tag info)? Currently (elementary-probability) is a synonym of probability, with (probability) as the master tag. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 9, 2020 at 8:46
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak I don't think that retaging questions by other users is good idea; also I don't think that the current status of probability-theory tag as an alternative to probability tag is a good idea; anyway, it does not work in practice. I think probability-theory can be used either as a secondary tag for the main probability tag, or simply removed. And there is no need in elementary-probability tag. $\endgroup$
    – kludg
    Commented Jan 9, 2020 at 9:37
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Elementary probability problems and more advanced probabilistic concepts should definitely not be merged. These are handled very differently and require very different levels of mathematical knowledge. As an analogy: imagine if we merged number-theory and elementary-number-theory – what a disaster that would be! $\endgroup$
    – ViHdzP
    Commented Jan 9, 2020 at 19:21
  • $\begingroup$ @URL How this is related to the particular probability and probability-theory situation? In no way. I believe most downvoters rarely or never visit probability questions, and don't understand why probability-theory tag is not needed. $\endgroup$
    – kludg
    Commented Feb 20, 2020 at 15:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I wouldn't merge them, but renaming probabilty as elementary-probability seems to be a good idea. After all, it states "For basic questions about probability [...]". $\endgroup$
    – Jean-Claude Arbaut
    Commented May 5, 2020 at 7:35
1
2

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