4:15 AM
@ToddTrimble Still, I will ask this. I saw that abstract-algebra is deprecated. But when I look at the tag info for ra.rings-and-algebras, it sounds similarly to (abstract-algebra) on Math.SE.
> Non-commutative rings and algebras, non-associative algebras, universal algebra and lattice theory, linear algebra, semigroups.
Additionally I know that on math.SE Willie Wong created a synonym (ra.rings-and-algebras) $\to$ (abstract-algebra) as mentioned here: MO-MSE tag incompatibility.
For this reason my impression was that I would use( ra.rings-and-algebras) roughly for questions where I would use (abstract-algebra) on math.SE. (I know that hit is rather vague.)
Maybe if @quid is around, they might have something to say about these tags - they are author of the suggestion to deprecated abstract-algebra. (But if you're now busy with your new duties as a moderator, feel free to ignore my ping.)
This is not about this specific instance (I have no problems with the tags you suggested). It's more about me trying to understand the usage of (ra.rings-and-algebras) on MO.
For example, semigroups are explicitly mentioned in the tag-info. So I'd guess that for questions about loops or quasi-groups, the same top-level tag could be used; they are rather similar to semigroups.
BTW thanks once again to Todd Trimble. I am glad that at least on some occasions I get some feedback when I ask for advice about tags for some question.
6 hours later…
10:53 AM
@MartinSleziak I'll have to look into that tag. "Rings and algebras" connotes, to me, algebras in the sense of rings whose multiplication is bilinear over some other ring (or sometimes non-associative algebras as well), and it seems to me it's pretty misleading to use that nomenclature as a grab bag for other things. We have tags universal-algebra, lattice-theory, and semigroups. Is it just because you want a top-level tag?
11:04 AM
Well, it's not that I want top-level tag, it's that you (=MO folk) recommend to use top-level tag on each question.
So when I help with retagging question, I try to follow recommendations given on MathOverflow meta. (Although beyond occasional removal of a deprecated tag and editing some tags which are clearly missing I do not do much retagging - when in doubt I ask here and leave it to other, more experienced retagges.)
@ToddTrimble Basically, when in doubt which tag to use, I look at the tag-wiki. (This is the purpose of the tag-wiki.) In this case, the tag-excerpt was created by François G. Dorais I guess you'll agree to me that he is one of the most experienced users on the site, especially when it comes to tags.
I have asked about this on meta quite recently: Which “non-arxiv” tags are de facto top-level tags? The question got some upvotes and views (I'd say more than usual for tag-related discussion), but no answers and one comment.
And also what I've heard from some experienced users (or past users) gave me the impression that using top-level tags is a reasonable thing to do.
Nov 20 '15 at 18:27, by quid
Just look around: how much community moderation or maintainance do you see beyond closing? The list of users by edits shows this too http://mathoverflow.net/users?tab=Editors&filter=year It is not even possible to maintain the most elementary guide that the top-level tags should be used. To be sure, lately I do not do much about it either.
Oct 16 at 4:06, by François G. Dorais
@MartinSleziak Yes, the tag management on MO is very different than on Mathematics. There are several reasons for that. For example, the systematic use of broad area tags borrowed from the arxiv on day one brought a lot of stability to the general tagging system here. Mathematics explicitly decided not to use such tags in the early days, which I think was a wise choice since a great deal of users on Mathematics are unfamiliar with the arxiv classification.
Certainly, I am not the only user who edits posts to add top-level tags - if you have a look at this query you can see many such edits. (And there are probably many other such edits, the query lists only those where this was explicitly mentioned in the edit summary.)
@ToddTrimble I certainly try to help here - both with editing and retagging, by no means I want to be in some way disruptive. So I do apologize if some of my retags were wrong - it is natural that everybody makes mistakes and maybe as I learn new stuff I'll avoid some of the mistakes I make.
But as I said, from what I've read it seemed to me that having top-level tag is generally accepted guideline here. (I've included above some examples what lead me to believe this.)
So when I edit tags on some of the question, I'll try to add a top-level tag if it's missing. And if I am not sure which top-level tag is suitable, I usually ask here.
8 mins ago, by Todd Trimble
@MartinSleziak I'll talk it over with @FrançoisG.Dorais in that case, and I may also add to the meta discussion.
Thanks for taking your time to look into this. I'd be glad to learn what are the rules about the tagging here and to which extent the guideline to use top-level tags should be taken seriously. (Personally, I take it quite seriously, since it is explicitly mentioned in one of the faq posts.)
11:55 AM
@MartinSleziak You are being in no way disruptive. In fact I really appreciate all that you have done editorially. In the present case, I think ct.category-theory makes more sense as a top-level tag, in terms of drawing in people who may have knowledge of relevant literature.
I would have never guessed CT. That's one of things I'm talking about - if I am able to, I try to help with tagging the questions. But some of the posts are clearly above my head or outside my area so that I am not sure which tag to use.
I this case I have removed the deprecated tag and added groupoids - those were the things I was confident about - but I was unsure about top-level tag, so I asked here.
5 hours later…
4:44 PM
@MartinSleziak the tag ra.rings-and-algebras does (for the most part) neither include commutative algebra, which goes under ac.commutative-algebra nor group theory which goes under gr.group-theory. This is the main difference to the abstract-algebra tag on Mathematics. For example, a question about Dedekind domains could be tagged abstract-algebra there but it'd mostly be wrong to tag it [ra.rings-and-algebras] on MO, it should be [ac.commutative-algebra] or even [nt.number-theory].
An abstract-algebra might be some kind of super-tag over gr, ra, ac, and maybe parts of ct and even ag. That's too broad. And I'd have no clear idea what else it could be.
In any case, on MO it cannot be a synonym of ra.rings-and-algebras as questions about group theory and commutative algebra should usually not be tagged with it, while the abstract-algebra tag is frequently applied to them.
5:41 PM
To say a bit more about when to use ra.rings-and-algebras: for routine re-tagging without subfield expertise on the specific question I would mostly apply it to questions about non-commutative rings and non-commutative or non-associative algebras.
« first day (1527 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2384 days later) »
Transcript for
Oct26
Oct '1727
Oct28
MO editors' lounge
Talk related to editing, tagging and related matters for the s...