« first day (1004 days earlier)      last day (2896 days later) » 

11:19 AM
@MartinSleziak yes, in theory. This is not the only such tag. Another one is , standard TL and in some sense the worst: where there is no real standard TL tag. (In theory it'd be .)
The tag could also be mentioned in this regard.
 
11:37 AM
@quid If that's the case, shouldn't also some "not arxiv style" add to the list of top-level tags?
Or should perhaps this be worth opening a new question on meta?
 
12:29 PM
@MartinSleziak the proposal to revise the list of lop-level tags comes up form time to time. A reason against it is that once we start to change it there might be no end to discussion about what should be or should not be there.
 
So in short, your advice is not to post such thing on meta.MO.
But still basically tread set-theory, linear-algebra and perhaps graph-theory as if they were top-level tags.
 
Well it's not quite clear.
Another idea would be to get rid of the notion of top-level tag.
But really it is none of my business.
 
In fact I read here that: "I believe it is recommended to always use top level tags whenever possible. Most importantly, top level tags (and a few others like ) provide the highest level subject classification at MathOverflow."
So even the FAQ contains the advice on linear-algebra tag.
7
Q: Frequently asked questions about tagging on MathOverflow

Ricardo AndradeDue to several discussions on the main site, I am asking this question concerning the best practices for tagging questions on MathOverflow. Unfortunately, the relevant documentation page http://mathoverflow.net/help/tagging does not answer the following questions (except partially questions numbe...

@quid I respect that position. But still I appreciate that I got some response to my question.
 
 
4 hours later…
4:53 PM
A grumpy plea: can we please not introduce pseudo-LaTeX/MathJax in titles of questions, unless it seems absolutely necessary to interpret certain symbols such as subscripts
Also, I remain unconvinced that $SU(n)$ is better than SU(n) if this is used infrequently in the question, not least because it should arguably be ${\rm SU}(n)$ anyway
Not to mention ${\bf Z}$ versus ${\mathbb Z}$, and so on...
 
@YemonChoi This is related to some of the recent edit suggestions, I guess. I see that you voted to reject one of them.
It seems that the relevant meta thread is the one linked by quid above:
20
Q: Editing titles to include $\mathfrak{LaTeX \; Math}$

Joseph O'RourkeShould question titles, which sometimes intentionally avoid LaTeX math for those who choose faster rendering, be edited to insist upon LaTeX math? A recent instance that prompted my question is "two tetrahedra in R^4." The original title used R^4 to mean $\mathbb{R}^4$, and it was edited, bringin...

It seems that MO users have different opinions on this.
-1 for 1st para and +1 for 2nd para :-) — Yemon Choi Aug 8 '13 at 0:16
+1 for first paragraph, and -1 for second. :-) — Joel David Hamkins Aug 8 '13 at 11:32
One side effect of not using MathJax in the title is that such question can appear in the network-wide hot question lists. (And again, my guess is that the opinion whether this is a good thing or a bad thing will be devided.)
But I agree that there is certainly not much difference between $SU(n)$ and SU(n) or $\mathsf{ZFC}$ and ZFC.
 
5:49 PM
@YemonChoi IIRC it is possible to ping any editor. So perhaps the best way to make that particular user aware of this would be to ping him on that particular post and add a link to the particular post on meta or to your message ni chat (or both).
 

« first day (1004 days earlier)      last day (2896 days later) »