@MartinSleziak I vaguely feel that the faq could need some updating. But did not yet look into it in detail. Would you have an opinion on this?

Also, interesting question on the top-level tags on MO. I am curious what will come of it.

Presumably you know this anyway and only seek confirmation but: usually graph-theory under co.combinatorics, set-theory under lo.logic, real-analysis mostly ca.analysis-and-odes (but might also be fa or ap sometimes).

linear-algebra is more tricky. "By the book" I think it would be ra.rings-and-algebras but depending on context other things might be more natural such a ac.commutative-algebra. (Incidentally, at some point it had been proposed to delete this tag.)

On the other question, I guess I just do not see the point in not tagging co in addition to graph-theory.

I mean in general, if somebody really uses all fives tags, alright. But in general, I mean just what is gained form not tagging it?

Especially for those tags where there is a relatively natural top-level tag.

About MO top-level tag: I'll simply go with whatever the MO community says they consider correct tagging. I do not have any problem with treating (linear-algebra) or (graph-theory) as a top-level tag.

We talked about this a bit in the MO editors' lounge: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/10243/2016/5/22 (In fact, that real-analysis is probably used in that way did not occur to me until you mentioned it.)

But I have some doubts whether the question gets an answer at all. My impression is that there is not much participation in tag-related discussions on meta.MO. And this was also confirmed by François G. Dorais:

> These days, however, only a handful of users are interested in tagging issues, probably since the system works well enough for everyone.

In fact, I explicitly asked moderators in chat whether the question is ok - I said that I am certainly willing to delete it if it should be for some reasona problematic: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/10243/2017/10/21

@quid Do you mean update in the sense that some other questions should be chosen as faq or that some of the posts tagged as FAQ are a bit outdated and need some editing?

Perhaps both, but I guess mainly the latter.

IIRC this is one of those tags that can only be added/removed by moderators.

I am definitely not going through all FAQ posts at the same time - that would be quite a lot of reading.

But if I stumble upon something which needs updating, I can edit. (Or ask you for advice if I am not sure.)

After all, I use comment templates quite a lot, several of them contain link to some faq-item.

@BAYMAX So it seems that my assessment of the question was incorrect.

I donot know,also asking for such a comfort may be wrong to me asking as a question, have to deal with many formalities before posting a question,it would be great if we could make a question on that,but i find no help,its ok any way.

@MartinSleziak yes both. I think the former could also be relevant. There are many "proposed faq."

@MartinSleziak the question then though would be does one keep the formatting of the arXiv tags, are the other top-level also marked in some way, or what else? At this point it could be probably best to simply drop the notion, and to recommend to use at least some popular tag.

Sorry I had forgotten that earlier conversation. Fortunately it appears I at least gave somewhat consistent advice.

Re the quote by François. Well, I guess that is one way of looking at it, but not an overly ambitious one if I dare say.

To be honest, after many discussions on meta, I've mostly given up on tag-related efforts.

When I see a new tag, I mention it in tagging chatroom. But I seldom bring up new tags on meta - except for the cases which seem the most problematic.

I mostly help with retagging some questions on the main - I hope at least in some cases my retags help a bit.

To some extent to "construct" the tag system in abstract, indeed might not be the best approach.

This conversations reminds me that I need to follow up on something re number-theory tag.

@MartinSleziak if there were an election for Most Valuable User you'd have my vote.

I disagree, but there is no point in arguing about this. So, thanks!

@quid This was mentioned recently by Jyrki: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/67270/2017/10/20 and chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/67270/2017/10/21

In fact, now I noticed that he pinged you there. So maybe you've seen that.

Yes, but that that ping should not work... and it did not I think. Anyway I did not know about that, thanks for pointing it out. But he had left me a comment on meta, which is what I meant to follow up on.

Don't moderators have something called superping? Which pings even users which were not in that room.

However, I do not know whether ping and superping look differently when displayed in transcript.

@MartinSleziak yes, they do, but I don't think he used it.

If you volunteer as "victim" we can test how it looks.

Ok, but I suppose it should be used in a room where I am not pingable in regular way...?

I guess I wasn't in sandbox for some time. So probably I'm not pingable there. (I mean using regular ping, not superping.)

I now checked that Jyriki's ping was not a superping.

I am very exhausted now from casting superpings and need to make a break. :-)

Ok. See you later!

See you!