12:08 PM
3

The tag elementary-probability has been created recently. The tag-info is currently empty. Do we want/need this tag? I'd say that past discussions on meta indicate that tags are not based on level/difficulty of the question, but on the content. For example: Should we require a tag that which spe...

As far as I know, which is to say, not all that well in this case, there already is a distinction by level in probability theory, too. The respective tags are probability and probability-theory. The implications of this, though, are not quite clear. But in any case I feel it is relevant to this discussion. — quid ♦ May 5 '17 at 6:50
There is an old post about the tag - I guess three upvotes cannot be considered a sign of sufficient consensus to remove the tag right?
If the removal of the tag should be considered, should a new question on meta be posted about that?
I'll add that there was also this question about the same tag - but it was quickly closed as a duplicate: The Elementary probability tag.
At least, if the decision to remove the tag is made at some point, there will not be much bumping. (I suppose that merging into would work.)

12:22 PM
@MartinSleziak I'll create a synonym now, in preparation of merging. We (you or I) could create an entry in the current thread about the synoym; if no one objects that's that and if somebody objects, we'll see and nothing much is lost as I just can remove the syn and for existing one everything is back to normal.
I think the non usage over time shows the tag is not really needed.
I mean it does not even have a 100 question after more than two years, while potentially there ought to be thousands where it could be used.

@quid If you are willing to make the post, I'd be grateful. (If nothing else, you are in better position to explain which steps mods/you have already done.)

Incidentally, there was a pending proposal at score 3.
For the syn I mean.

I did not notice that. Who suggested it? (If it was me and I have forgotten about it, that's quite embarrassing.)
in Tagging, May 22 '18 at 7:42, by Martin Sleziak
I see that two new tag synonyms have been proposed by GNU Supporter.
in Tagging, May 22 '18 at 7:43, by Martin Sleziak
One of them is $\to$ . Related post on meta can be found in Tag management 2017.
I see that you have already made a post on meta. Thanks for looking into this and for your time!

12:40 PM
I created the post. I meant to quip that it'll help me to catch up a bit on CW-meta answers, but the thread is not CW, which also explains a bit why I am that low on Cw answerrs.
For other readers, the above comment is in reference of a statistics comment that was posted recently in another room.

TBH I don't think that there is a reason for tag management thread to be CW. After all, there is not intention that they are going to be edited by community.

Yes, I agree. I just thought it was.

Or at least, I would say that there neither strong argument for nor against making tag management threads CW.
I think some of the past tag management threads are indeed CW.

One could say latter updates are often edits, but in any case that's mostly users with edit privilege so it's moot.
Yes, maybe also as in the past there was auto-CW. Not sure.

Also both tag-related "long threads" on MathOverflow Meta are CW: Help cleanup tags! and Help improve tagging!

12:58 PM
Thinking about it, there is no real reason for Reopen thread to be CW either. The status-updates usually will be made by a voter (thus edit privilege) or maybe poster.
Sometimes it is in fact inconvenient not to know easily who was at the origin of the post.
I think the next one I'll keep it non-CW.
Good that I did not follow through with my impulse to create a new one after a year.