19
$\begingroup$

The tag has been created about a year ago in this question: Quotient rule/Quotient rule.

When I look at questions which have this tag now (31 questions at the moment) or which were tagged with this tag in the past, it seems that people are using it for all sorts of stuff. (Basically anything where some kind of identity appears. To me it seems somewhat similar to the previously deleted (algebraic-identities) tag.)

The tag-info is a natural place where we could look for the intended use if this tag, but it is empty at the moment.

So I have basically two questions:

  • Can this tag be useful? Should we keep it or should be removed?
  • If we want to keep it, could at least the intended usage of the tag be clarified (and the tag-info edited accordingly)?
$\endgroup$
2
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Remove it. It seems odd to me that the system allows the creation of a tag without any tag-info. $\endgroup$
    – Jens
    Commented Jul 3, 2018 at 17:17
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @Jens The system doesn't allow the creation of a tag with a tag info. A tag is created by adding it to a question, and only after it's been introduced can one write a description. It does feel a little backwards. I'd support a feature request to turn that around. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 4, 2018 at 21:20

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

I suggest to remove the tag . With the empty tag-info (and no suggestion for the scope of this tag in this discussion) the tag is very likely to be used inconsistently and it is rather questionable whether it is going to be useful. (It would be different matter if somebody suggested a reasonable guide for the type of questions where this tag is going to be used. But even in such case, the tag is likely to be misused and we would have to keep an eye on this tag and remove it from unsuitable question.)

Since nobody posted an answer so far, I have posted an answer myself. In this way we can see from voting (and possibly comments) on this answer what the community thinks about the proposal to remove the tag. (There is a comment by Jens suggesting to remove the tag. But since comments are less visible and they cannot be downvoted, we probably cannot read too much into the reception of that comment.)

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Since the question has been around some time, I do not think we get further feedback on this. So I accepted this answer. (It is the only answer and it also got several upvotes.) $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 17, 2018 at 8:17
  • $\begingroup$ The tag has been removed. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 17, 2018 at 11:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/28614/what-is-the-calculus-identities-tag-intended-for
math.meta.stackexchange.com
CC-MAIN-2024-26
110487
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:USL5S4PV355VNQHA4YBDJMCP6UJ7ZZDN
<urn:uuid:5141d933-6608-40c6-b282-672f51f20fc3>
2024-06-16T17:53:24Z
104.18.43.226
text/html
sha1:ECQFKBLIYTXEYRNODRYOXQ5OV6LZDC7A
<urn:uuid:213a9cc4-df34-4fb4-83c8-577b5756b2f4>
https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/28614/what-is-the-calculus-identities-tag-intended-for
response
<urn:uuid:db981d13-74b3-4f8f-bae8-af4494f7d7eb>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-26
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-21
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/