32
$\begingroup$

Moderator's Note: I am (at least) temporarily closing this thread. New suggestions should be made in the current Winter tag cleanup meta-thread.


This is half a question, half an announcement. I will be going through the list of tags and merging particularly bad ones (e.g. ones that aren't mathematical or are too specific) into the tag [tag-removed]. I will also be creating tag synonyms. Any suggestions for mergers or synonyms should go into this thread.

Roughly speaking, here is my general policy: if I can't imagine a person classifying a tag as either interesting or ignored, I'm getting rid of it.

Edit: This thread and the tag changes archive have been merged for simplicity.

Edit2: I've started a new summary thread. Moderators: please allow sufficient time (at least 1 day) for discussion on "non-trivial" proposals, before actual implementation (some of such "non-trivial" ones are still not yet resolved, see the list below). After implementation please first comment to indicate implementation (to get a date stamp), then delete the answer to unclutter, and add a line to the summary thread.

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by user642796 Feb 6 '14 at 9:08

  • This question does not appear to be about Mathematics Stack Exchange or the software that powers the Stack Exchange network within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Changes are automatically recorded at math.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms?filter=all&tab=master , but for changes initiated by moderators please also post them as answers in this thread so that they can be voted and commented upon. In theory, reversal or a different synonym might be a result of the discussion in some cases. (In practice, the moderator judgements have been reasonable as one can see at that link.) $\endgroup$ – T.. Dec 17 '10 at 5:59
  • $\begingroup$ I deleted two tag synonyms experimentally, but unfortunately I do not remember what they are. Anyone who misses them enough to remember them should post it in this thread and let it be voted on. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Dec 17 '10 at 6:01
  • $\begingroup$ @T..: should I also report on the tags I've merged? $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Dec 17 '10 at 6:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think it's good practice to document any changes if it's not completely annoying to do so. Maybe a separate "tag changes history" thread can be the archive and this one for the suggestions. This is just my preference, I have no idea what others might think, but because the tag system already contains some evolved structure it seems like any modification should be documented. This might also be useful for other purposes later. $\endgroup$ – T.. Dec 17 '10 at 6:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @T..: I'm not so sure. Most of what I'll be doing is essentially garbage-collection and I don't think that's worth documenting. Anything that's not obviously garbage-collection I'll propose in this thread. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Dec 17 '10 at 6:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also, I have the feeling that decisions on tags will often arise after a certain amount of back and forth about competing proposals (see e.g. the current discussion on [cardinals] or the earlier one that led to [elementary-set-theory]) and it is easy to forget the logic of the decision later on. The tag system is part of the knowledge-organization function performed by the site, so it could be very interesting over time to see how the choices are made and what principles can be distilled from the process. $\endgroup$ – T.. Dec 17 '10 at 6:18
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ re: garbage collection, individual decisions might be trivial but taken cumulatively there may be non-obvious decisions to be made, patterns noticed or design criteria articulated. It would suffice to have a single "garbage tags" posting (list each removed tag plus number of times it was used) that keeps growing from the garbage collection in progress, but visibility of the changes has its own value. Simply knowing the fraction and nature of junk tags is useful for considering the future evolution of the tag system. $\endgroup$ – T.. Dec 17 '10 at 6:23
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the additional thread. May I suggest the format "[original tag], change, number of postings affected, sample link". $\endgroup$ – T.. Dec 17 '10 at 7:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @T..: the latter. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Dec 17 '10 at 8:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ why are people downvoting? also, this is much better idea than the previous one. $\endgroup$ – Sean Tilson Dec 17 '10 at 15:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This seems to have gotten absolutely unreadable. I think we'd be much better off with each request in its own question. $\endgroup$ – Isaac Apr 29 '11 at 18:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Qiaochu: Because it takes too long to figure out what's new or changed when this monster-question gets bumped to the top. If one person has many tag changes to suggest, they can post them all in one meta question if they want, but I think we'd be more likely to get useful information from answers on such questions and votes on the question and answers if each suggestion were its own question. $\endgroup$ – Isaac Apr 30 '11 at 0:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Qiaochu ...And comments in new answers are folded immediately (because there are too many comments in total) — I second the idea of starting new thread or something $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Aug 18 '11 at 12:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ New thread: meta.math.stackexchange.com/q/12485 $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Jan 16 '14 at 16:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This question is now superseded by the Winter tag cleanup thread. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Feb 6 '14 at 9:08

70 Answers 70

3
$\begingroup$

How about we kick the bucket on ? Besides the fact that this is a technique used in linear algebra, this is the name of one of the most prominent proof techniques in logic and set theory (Russell paradox, Cantor's theorem, Incompleteness theorems, existence of $\Gamma$-universal sets for a myriad of pointclasses, and more).

But I also think that as a tag it has no real value, and it mainly clutters the linear algebra related tags. I don't see someone particularly following this tag (I mean, who has a thing for matrix diagonalization? Sure, Rule 36, but still...); and if anyone ever wants to search for it they could use "[linear-algebra] diagonalization" to get sufficient results in a second.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Meta tags:

Please merge with .

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The two are now merged. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Dec 9 '13 at 10:11
3
$\begingroup$

I would like to suggest the synonym (categories) for . I already suggested it on the tag's about-page some time ago, but it didn't receive any attention, so far.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Done. Remember that voting for synonyms are only available to mods and those with sufficient reputation in the tag. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Dec 9 '13 at 10:07
3
$\begingroup$

Some candidates for pluralization. In the following two cases, pluralization would make tags more consistent with MO in addition to improving internal consistency of tags:

And a couple more:

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'd certainly prefer "field-extension(s)" to "extension-field(s)"... $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Jan 2 '14 at 16:50
2
$\begingroup$

This question was tagged [sangaku]. Merged to [puzzle].

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Sangaku are not puzzles, they are (in most cases) theorems in classical Euclidean geometry. Suggest to keep it or merge/syn with [euclidean-geometry]. $\endgroup$ – T.. Dec 17 '10 at 8:02
  • $\begingroup$ The question was already tagged "puzzle," so no additional merging or unmerging is necessary. I can synonymize with [euclidean-geometry] but I don't expect this tag to see much traffic. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Dec 17 '10 at 8:03
2
$\begingroup$

This question was tagged [iteration]. Merged to [tag-removed].

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Could people who downvoted this explain their motives? It seems that somebody must have derived some non-trivial information from seeing the tag [iteration], which, I have to admit, baffles me. $\endgroup$ – Alex B. Dec 17 '10 at 15:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There have been a number of problems (and presumably more in future) asking for asymptotics of an iteration. These are purely problems of real or complex analysis with similar methods used in the different solutions; it is a genre of its own with an interconnected (and cross-linked) body of questions. The answers generally do not use concepts of dynamical systems (invariant measure, ergodicity, chaos, stability, ...) except fixed point. I think it is more informative to label them as [analysis] [iteration], or the same with [dynamical-systems] as an additional tag, not a replacement. $\endgroup$ – T.. Dec 17 '10 at 17:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I would appreciate some explanation. I cannot imagine anyone putting [iteration] as either an interesting-tag or an ignored-tag and, as I explained, that is my primary criterion for removing tags. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Dec 17 '10 at 18:54
  • $\begingroup$ The linked Q&A contains a discussion of why it was difficult to for the OP to locate related questions. An [iteration] or [iterated-function] tag would have eliminated that difficulty had it been applied to the other questions. In fact, doing so retroactively would be useful. Dynamical systems is a broad and largely irrelevant category for these questions about single orbits. None of these questions, their answers or the references cited mention dynamical systems (e.g. the famous chapter of De Bruijn's book is on "Iterated Functions"). [Analysis] applies but is a huge category. $\endgroup$ – T.. Dec 18 '10 at 5:43
  • $\begingroup$ @T..: if you feel strongly enough about this tag you are free to reintroduce it; the moderators don't have a monopoly on that. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Dec 18 '10 at 6:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Qiaochu: as the downvoter, I answered first Alex's question and then your further request for explanation. Feeling strongly or weakly or any other type of feeling have nothing to do with it; I simply provided some details that were requested about rationale for an [iteration] tag. The only feeling I'd like to share here is the thought that something much more beneficial for the site culture than any specific decision about tags, is for everyone to avoid discussing, alluding to, or speculating upon users' feelings, motives, thoughts, etc (even in the semi-hypothetical "if you feel X" mode). $\endgroup$ – T.. Dec 18 '10 at 7:25
  • $\begingroup$ A minor point in case anyone finds it amusing. I realized after posting that I had not actually downvoted, only intended to do so and reconsidered or never got around to it. So the "true" downvoter has not explained himself, but may have spoken again through upvotes on the comments. $\endgroup$ – T.. Dec 19 '10 at 21:48
2
$\begingroup$

Is there a need for all three of , and ?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

(1 question) should be merged as a synonym of (36+ questions). Some people also use for questions about computability; I guess someone will have to look at those by hand, because that last tag could also be about recurrence relations or other forms of recursion.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ My mistake, sorry... $\endgroup$ – Yuval Filmus May 2 '11 at 2:01
  • $\begingroup$ It's a perfectly reasonable tag name, we just seem to have started on "computability" first. Do I understand correctly that after they are merged, if someone else uses "recursion-theory" the software will replace it with "computability" automatically? That would be ideal. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert May 2 '11 at 2:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Carl: I believe that is not merging but rather tag synonyms. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila May 2 '11 at 8:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf: is this documented somewhere? $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert May 2 '11 at 11:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Carl: No, I am certain Jeff can answer that, though. One of the mods as well. This was the reason I used "believe" :-) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila May 2 '11 at 12:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Asaf and Carl, there are two different ways to do tag merges: with synonyms turned on or off. With it on, it will behave as Carl described in the second comment above. With it off, the tag can be created anew. (There are, in some cases, good reasons for doing that.) $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong May 3 '11 at 9:55
  • $\begingroup$ I've made recursion-theory as a synonym of computability. Someone better informed will have to look at recursive by hand. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong May 3 '11 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Willie: Thanks. I have been looking at the "recursive" ones, but I try to just do one at a time to avoid flooding the main page. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert May 3 '11 at 10:52
2
$\begingroup$

I am not a big fan of the tag . Part of its purpose can be absorbed into the tag . The other part of its purpose probably just shouldn't be: I think if you are asking for the big picture in the sense beyond mathematical intuition, your question will be more often better served

  • By looking the subject up in an encyclopedia
  • By rephrasing it to be more focused and answerable.

(In short, I think the concept of "big-picture" encourages questions that are more ambiguous and vague.)

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

There is a tag (107 questions) and there are (32 questions) and (3 questions).

In a perfect world, the two latter tags would be specifications of the former. However, there are various uses of these names, specifically, the gamma function is also used for the somewhat related gamma-distribution in probability, specifically here, here and (sort of) here.

Recently, there were a few questions tagged that had to do with the Bachmann-Landau $\Theta$ appearing in asymptotics ("... grows asymptotically as fast as ...").

I suggest:

  1. Let's get rid of (delete it, no substitution/merge) and disallow its use in the future for being too specific.
  2. Leave since it is used frequently enough.

Alternatively to 2. one could also think about making a synonym of at the risk of having to re-tag some probabilistic questions manually (even if that tag wouldn't be completely out of place, IMO).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I suppose you took care of the asymptotic $\Theta$s? I agree with (1), and am inclined to agree with the alternative to (2). $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Jul 12 '11 at 10:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Willie: Yes, I did take care of the asymptotic $\Theta$s. $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jul 12 '11 at 10:50
2
$\begingroup$

Shouldn't and be synonymous?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ By name, yes. But look at the actual questions tagged tessellations. I think some of them are not actually about plane tilings. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Oct 3 '11 at 12:40
2
$\begingroup$

What about ? One question with no votes and no answers has it as an only tag, the rest - I think - it can be removed completely.

Or is it that mods here still cannot delete a tag?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ We cannot delete a tag. To have the tags removed we have to retag all the questions or merge it into another one. And it is not all that bad compared to others. I find it hard to justify to myself why it must be removed. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Nov 25 '11 at 12:35
2
$\begingroup$

I should have brought this up a few days ago when the tag had just been created, but I don't think satisfies the Qiaochu criterion, "Can you imagine a person classifying a tag as either interesting or ignored?"

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I personally would keep the tag, but I neither upvoted nor downvoted your answer yet. (If I had to decide I would keep it, but I am not entirely sure.) If we would decide to get rid of this tag, wouldn't merging in into some bigger tag for "language-related" questions (or renaming and adding other questions) be better? Although I am not sure what a good name for such tag would be, apart from pronunciation we have several questions related to translations of mathematical terms (and probably some other similar questions could be found). $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Aug 7 '12 at 6:13
2
$\begingroup$

Would it be justified to synonymize and (both ~100 questions)? as the primary tag seems sensible to me.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

seems to be used for essentially the same kind of thing as .

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There was a suggestion to synonymize in this post. It received some support (two upvotes), but it has not been discussed too much. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Oct 8 '13 at 12:26
2
$\begingroup$

After retagging two questions, (10q) is now ripe for merging with .

Edit: As pointed out by zyx, already exists. Probably better to merge it into that one (or perhaps merge both into , but not every question about quadratics involves an equation).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The tag description for 221 question (quadratics) is that it is about quadratic equations, so that tag should rather be merged into (quadratic-equation). $\endgroup$ – zyx Nov 1 '13 at 17:40
2
$\begingroup$

https://math.stackexchange.com/tags/theorem-provers/info links to , which has no summary or tag wiki and appears indistinguishable.

Edit

The tag also has no tag wiki, and may also be a candidate for merging.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Resolved: has been merged into (and made a synonym of) .

I am thinking of merging the meta-tag into (without synonymising). All of our questions deal with the 2013 Winter Bash, and IMHO it is unlikely that any future questions will come up outside of a future Winter Bash.

While I could unilaterally enact this change, I'm hoping I can get one or two upvotes here before doing so (or be told a good reason why I should not).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I have suggested that these two tags could be synonyms in the tagging chatroom. See here and here. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 9 '14 at 7:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin: My preference would be to simply get rid of hat by emptying it via merging, and then let it be deleted. Is there a reason you think hat should be preserved at all (even as a synonym of another tag)? $\endgroup$ – user642796 Jan 9 '14 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ IMO it is possible that someone would create (hat) again, if they have a question about hats. (And they do not notice the tag ([meta-tag-winter-bash]).) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 9 '14 at 10:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Martin: I guess if there is ever a non-Winter-Bash reason to have a hat tag, a mod can always remove the synonym. I'll go ahead and do all this presently. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Jan 9 '14 at 11:10
1
$\begingroup$

In continuation to my quest to sort out [cardinals] and [large-cardinals] (after accepting the fact there is no way these two will be merged) without bumping the hell out of many questions:

The following should be switched to/added as [large-cardinals]

While the following should be taken off [large-cardinals]

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Asaf, as far as I know I can't change the tags on specific questions without bumping them. I can only merge all of one tag into another. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Jan 6 '11 at 23:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Qiaochu: I see. In that case, I guess it's best to leave things as they are perhaps. Or just go along with my original idea and merge cardinals and large-cardinals ;-) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 6 '11 at 23:30
1
$\begingroup$

I accidentally created the linear-optimization tag earlier today on this question: In linear optimization, what does "AP" stand for?. I have since changed it to the already-existing linear-programming tag, but now we have a linear-optimization tag that doesn't point to anything. Would you delete the linear-optimization tag?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I suggest to merge (only six posts) with .

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ at least two of those needs to be retagged if we follow your proposal, as they are actually questions of real analyticity, which is quite very different from complex-analysis. As it currently is, I don't see sufficient reason to actually go through with the merge. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Mar 23 '11 at 16:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Willie: Right, I hadn't looked carefully enough. Sorry for the noise. $\endgroup$ – t.b. Mar 24 '11 at 8:24
1
$\begingroup$

Aren't we all in one way or another?

Well, not all of us. However these six questions here hardly make a point in favor of this tag.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The questions in that tag has a spread. Some are about the profession of being a mathematician, and some are about historical famous mathematicians. The latter can probably be safely retagged into (math-history). Is there a better tag for the former? $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Jul 29 '11 at 15:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Willie: Of course. (soft-question) :-) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jul 29 '11 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ I am in favor of keeping the tag. However, @Willie asked about appropriate tag for questions about the profession of being a mathematician. The tag advice seems reasonable to me. (Although I did not find many questions of this kind - perhaps some questions had already been retagged.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jul 17 '12 at 10:37
1
$\begingroup$

Do we really need ? I mean, a good deal of mathematics is essentially about continuity...

This tag seems a wee bit undefined; overly broad; and all in all irritating.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ IIRC this tag has been introduced by Srivatsan; see the chat transcript here. I can imagine it as a suitable tag for some questions about equivalent definitions of continuity; or sequential continuity vs. continuity. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jun 11 '12 at 13:22
  • $\begingroup$ I wonder why you have a gripe with (continuity) and introduce (compactness) which is at least as broad... :) $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jul 6 '12 at 9:41
  • $\begingroup$ @t.b. I had a problem with this tag, but now I have less problem with it. This post is old! $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jul 6 '12 at 9:43
  • $\begingroup$ I see... Forced yourself into a different tagging model, I presume. $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jul 6 '12 at 9:45
  • $\begingroup$ @t.b. Not quite, it is just that the inductive process generating the model is never done, so with time new things are added and truth values change. No forcing... Yet! $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jul 6 '12 at 9:55
  • $\begingroup$ well yes, there is forcing: you force me (the continuum tuberculosis) to live with (compactness) which makes me independent :) $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jul 6 '12 at 10:07
  • $\begingroup$ @t.b. Well as long as I don't have to force myself to do things, I am good. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jul 6 '12 at 10:20
1
$\begingroup$

I feel that should be folded into .

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I had assumed that the former refers to the function $\exp$, and the latter to arithmetic operation $(x,y)\mapsto x^y$. I see that they are used inter-changeably now. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Feb 21 '13 at 11:21
  • $\begingroup$ also, what do you feel about the powers? $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Mar 1 '13 at 1:13
  • $\begingroup$ Blah, that's another thing that needs to be sorted out. It seems they all are being used interchangeably. Messy... $\endgroup$ – J. M. is a poor mathematician Mar 23 '13 at 12:37
1
$\begingroup$

Can we make go bye-bye?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Bye-bye where? Just kill, or merge? $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Dec 9 '13 at 10:06
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know, what do you think? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Dec 9 '13 at 10:19
  • $\begingroup$ I would say kill, probably. What could it merge with? $\endgroup$ – dfeuer Dec 11 '13 at 6:06
1
$\begingroup$

should be merged with and should henceforth be regarded a synonym or similar term.

I also suggest the creation of the synonyms and (indices) and even (orders) if possible but that may result in a confusion with maybe.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I will decline the "indices" synonym, since there are many other uses of the term. "exponents" I think is not strictly necessary, since users with javascript enabled will see "exponentiation" suggested if they start typing the first few letters of "exponents". $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Dec 9 '13 at 10:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (orders) is a bad idea, also, as you already noted. In any case, I just created the mapping (powers) -> (exponentiation) and did the merge. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Dec 9 '13 at 10:09
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong: Acknowledged and I thank you, on behalf of the entire stackexchange community, for your dedicated efforts. $\endgroup$ – Nick Dec 9 '13 at 10:13
1
$\begingroup$

[RESOLVED]

The tag is misspelled (should be ).

Am I right to think such a correction requires Moderator intervention?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I just manually retagged the questions to the more correct probabilistic-method tag. This seems to be the appropriate action as per this MSO post. (Clearly this did not require moderator intervention.) $\endgroup$ – user642796 Jan 7 '14 at 7:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, the only drawback is that tag wiki has to be recreated. I'm on it. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jan 7 '14 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ Ooops. Didn't notice that there was a tag-wiki. Apologies. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Jan 7 '14 at 13:01
0
$\begingroup$

Just a few comments:

I think that Sum should be removed or at least be made a synonym of Series. But probably remove it.

I don't know what Untagged is? Maybe it is the same as Tag-removed? Probably should be removed.

I don't see the point of Relations. It seems totally arbitrary, and I see no advantage to having it.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the point of untagged is that, the question is untagged. If you remove the untagged tag, it is still untagged, so ... (also, it is different from tag-removed. tag-removed does not mean that the tag is removed from the question, but that the tag has been removed from the list of available tags. That option is now obsolete by the new tag rename and tag merge/synonym systems.) $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong May 3 '11 at 9:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Which means that the way to fix untagged would be to actually give them tags, manually, one by one. (One way for untagged questions to occur is when a question was migrated from another site, and on that site it was using only tags which we do not have here.) $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong May 3 '11 at 9:36
  • $\begingroup$ The relations tag may have been used for several different things. Looking at the list of questions it is not obvious to me what you want to merge it into. It will have to be dealt with by hand. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong May 3 '11 at 9:37
  • $\begingroup$ I've dealt with (sum). And am working through (untagged) by hand. There are at least a few that I don't know how to tag (partially being really off topic). $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong May 3 '11 at 9:42
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, those were just some oddballs I noticed. :) $\endgroup$ – BBischof May 3 '11 at 14:16
  • $\begingroup$ I believe relations might be useful. Some time ago I have created tag-wiki and tag-excerpt to indicate the intended use of this tag, see here. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jun 20 '12 at 10:33
0
$\begingroup$

The has only two questions, and should be merged/synonymized with .

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If the fact that the past four posts are mine is problematic I will be happy to simply edit further requests into this post (or another). $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila May 23 '11 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ I think that it's better not to give more than one proposal in one post, unless they are closely related. Otherwise it is not clear what an upvote/downvote on such post means. (It is upvote for all proposals? For some of them?) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jul 2 '12 at 6:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin: Huh? I think you commented on the wrong answer... :-) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jul 2 '12 at 6:45
  • $\begingroup$ It was my (somewhat belated) comment to If ..., I will be happy to simply edit further requests into this post. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jul 2 '12 at 9:45
0
$\begingroup$

? Seriously? -stuff tag?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think we owe that to MO: mathoverflow.net/questions/tagged/simplicial-stuff one of the very first questions was tagged this way and the tag remained: mathoverflow.net/questions/691/simplicial-objects $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jun 28 '11 at 11:10
  • $\begingroup$ I've creared this one (modeling MO, indeed), but I'm open to suggestions -- what do you propose, actually? $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Jun 28 '11 at 11:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Theo: Doesn't make it right, I say :-) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 28 '11 at 11:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Grigory: I have no idea. However -stuff sounds weird. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 28 '11 at 11:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Grigory: Almost, but not quite: math.stackexchange.com/posts/45433/revisions, I think we share responsibility ;-) $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jun 28 '11 at 11:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf: I don't think it's that bad. The thing is that there is lots of simplicial stuff out there and it is hard to come up with a good alternative. $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jun 28 '11 at 11:17
  • $\begingroup$ ...But I think, we need a tag wiki for this one (maybe later -- there are too few questions so far, but still). $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Jun 28 '11 at 11:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Grigory: Well, I don't know. Googling for simplicial sets site:math.stackexchange.com gives me quite a few hits and many of them would be appropriately tagged as (simplicial-stuff), I counted at least a dozen questions that should be tagged this way. $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jun 28 '11 at 11:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Grigory: Okay I overestimated massively. I'm now through the list and only found the two (the one retagged by you and the one I retagged). $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jun 28 '11 at 11:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Theo: [simplical-objects] maybe? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 28 '11 at 11:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, I don't think this is descriptive enough. It's more about the morphisms (as usual). @Grigory: What do you think of [simplicial-methods]? $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jun 28 '11 at 11:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Theo For me [simplicial-methods] is more like when [simplicial-stuff] is applied to study something else (simplicial methods in topology, homological algebra, whatever) — so for questions about model structure on simplicial preasheaves [simplicial-stuff] seems to be slightly more natural. But I'm not sure, maybe it's OK (but I don't really see how it's better). $\endgroup$ – Grigory M Jun 28 '11 at 12:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf: I wonder if simplicial categories would be too ambiguous $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Jun 28 '11 at 12:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes I do. Maybe one should ask about it on meta.MO because 1. there might be more need to do something about it as there are more than 100 questions tagged this way (as opposed to currently 4 here) 2. there might be more experts that could come up with good ideas for alternatives. On the other hand, one could simply split this probably rarely used tag up into [simplicial-sets], [model-categories], and maybe [simplicial-methods] and introduce further tags as needed. $\endgroup$ – t.b. Jun 28 '11 at 12:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Theo: I am very much against splitting rarely used tags into even scarcer tags. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jun 28 '11 at 13:37

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1363/tag-merging-and-synonyms/2463
math.meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-18
375186
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:QSJBPX3SQKMIYIDEMW6KACYYSCGGEVMQ
<urn:uuid:33e964f9-f847-4f3e-8561-ca0b100d59a7>
2019-04-20T19:15:04Z
151.101.65.69
text/html
sha1:J55ECFL42MKRLQHCQJKR26TXUBYDAEMA
<urn:uuid:2f4ca48a-8531-42bc-8efe-befddfd0cc02>
https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1363/tag-merging-and-synonyms/2463
response
<urn:uuid:b8db0c09-e6aa-4f5b-b9fa-d435570896b8>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-18
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-169-175-90.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/