7
$\begingroup$

Related to the thread What is our policy on ambiguous tags?, I am starting this thread, for the benefit of people who wish to call attention to tags that should be merged, synonymized, or other such actions. The hope is that if a proposal garners enough upvotes, moderators would take heed and act accordingly. Please keep it to one proposal per answer.

$\endgroup$

10 Answers 10

Reset to default
7
$\begingroup$

Can be subsumed under ? I tagged most of the questions as questions also, with the exception of one question that had the maximum of five tags. (For that question, I just retagged it as .)

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I think in this case, people who have been active at answering finite-element questions should vote up fem as a synonym. $\endgroup$
    – J. M.
    Jan 7, 2012 at 1:16
5
$\begingroup$

Here's another tag question: should we merge and into , or is it worth keeping them separate? For instance, PETSc is a library, and Trilinos is a collection of libraries, but they've been referred to as software. Optimization solvers can be libraries, and are sometimes executables (the same solver might exist as both, too). However, Matlab is clearly software (even though you can call Matlab from a library, most people would not, and when you call Matlab from a library, it starts the Matlab engine). Mathematica is also clearly software, implying that we shouldn't subsume under . Thoughts?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ +1 at least for now there are not enough questions to justify distinguishing these, and every libraries post ought to also be software. $\endgroup$
    – David Ketcheson
    Jan 13, 2012 at 8:06
4
$\begingroup$

We now seem to have both and tags; which of these should be retained, and which one should be subsumed?

$\endgroup$
1
4
$\begingroup$

Could and be merged?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure what is meant to denote, but as far as I can tell it's a synonym of the (clearer) . I'd like to eliminate or make it explicitly a synonym of .

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ As a teeny-tiny note: the shortcut for tags on meta work a bit differently. As an example: [meta-tag:topicality] will point to the proper place (since it is a working tag on the meta site), while [tag:topicality] will not (since the main site does not have this tag). $\endgroup$
    – J. M.
    Jan 13, 2012 at 8:55
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I fixed it. $\endgroup$
    – David Ketcheson
    Jan 13, 2012 at 9:07
2
$\begingroup$

Is there a way to rename existing tags without creating a new one and manually retagging questions? We should change to .

Also, is there a way to define "is a" relationships between tags? Someone recently added the "solver" tag, which I think should not exist because it's too ambiguous. In that context, was most appropriate, but it might be nice to also have that could be used alone, but would implicitly include all questions tagged with .

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I changed ann to neural-network. $\endgroup$
    – David Ketcheson
    Jan 31, 2012 at 20:35
2
$\begingroup$

Yet another candidate: we have , , and . I'd like to get rid of both and . Is there a compelling reason to keep either of those seemingly redundant tags?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I agree they are a tad too specific... $\endgroup$
    – J. M.
    Feb 2, 2012 at 18:29
2
$\begingroup$

I've proposed making a synonym of . (Although the former has more questions, tags are usually in singular.)

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ It really ought to be. How come it stayed that long? $\endgroup$
    – J. M.
    May 27, 2016 at 20:35
  • $\begingroup$ They probably look too similar to notice, unless you're specifically thinking about tag cleanup... $\endgroup$
    – Christian Clason
    May 27, 2016 at 20:38
1
$\begingroup$

Please delete this misspelled tag: optimzation

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Currently no question is using it (optimzation that is), so if nobody uses it in two or so days, the system will automagically eliminate it. No worries. :) $\endgroup$
    – J. M.
    Jan 24, 2012 at 23:38
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, thanks. I had just retagged the question that was using it. $\endgroup$
    – Jed Brown
    Jan 25, 2012 at 0:04
1
$\begingroup$

Tags , , , and all have no usage guidance, and their differences are not clear.

I would like to get rid of all of them, or at least advise future users not to use it, as all of these tags are too broad.

There is also a meta discussion on and .

$\endgroup$
1

You must log in to answer this question.

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