Removed tags (from the most recent ones): main, meta.

Created tags (from the most recent ones): main, meta

Most frequent tag-creators: main, meta.

Most frequent tag "cleaners": main, meta.

Recent tag-info edits: main, meta.

Recent suggested edits on tag-infos: main, meta.

Recent suggested edits: main

Orphaned tag-wikis: main, meta.

Recently approved tag synonyms: main, meta.

Pending tag synonyms: SEDE, List on the site - when viewing this list, only the synonyms where users has score >=5 in the master tag are shown, SEDE should list all pending synonyms.

Pending tag synonyms on meta: SEDE, List on the site.

Tags with only one occurrence (which might be removed after 6 months, on meta 12 months): main, meta.

@MartinSleziak @Nij I'm not sure about a tag that's quite that specific, but if transfer is going to be used I think it should probably be renamed. Is the term "transfer" used outside of (euro) football? Not as far as I can tell, nor according to Wikipedia, and they are very specific...

> A transfer in professional football differs significantly to a trade in American, Canadian and Australian sports, where teams essentially trade existing player contracts, without any transfer fees involved.

So I think we should either use a new tag, trade, or not use one at all.

(well, not exactly new, one question has it...)

@Joe My bad. I definitely do not object to removal of the tag from that question.

After all, I am just a visitor here - the local users should certainly have the final word about the usage of the tags.

Here is another example of a question where trade or trades would probably better - if there are suppose to be two different tags for trades and trasfers: NHL Trades: Can one find the exact language of every trade?

That one is on me, too: sports.stackexchange.com/posts/15621/revisions

I'd like to see what @Nij thinks, as I'm just one person, and Nij clearly was okay with it.

I will say I tend to like to under-tag; meaning, for me, a question tagged trade would be one that was asking about trades in general, but probably not specifically nhl ones - nhl is sufficient for those, unless we suddenly got a lot of questions about trades in the NHL.

(And I don't know if you could have questions about trades in general, really - so I would tend not to have such a tag.)

(I really should check the chat room more, I need to figure out how to get notifications from it better...)

@MartinSleziak as one of the more frequent contributors to this room, your information and observations are of course appreciated, and prompting constructive discussion.

Absolutely agree!

@Joe I think it is de facto policy that we put all relevant tags on e.g. a question about words in the Laws of cricket is tagged all of terminology rules cricket. Similarly, a question about trades in the NHL should be tagged for both, since 1. This identifies all of the key topics in the question, and 2. Will attract attention users interested in either tag, increasing the chance of a link between the question and someone who can answer it.

We're not so big that our userbase has many subcommunities focused on more narrow topics, but we have enough content that we should aim to build the links as much as possible.

That said, there will be some combinations that are sensible to keep up, but so rare in practise that we'd only get a handful of questions tagged with all of X Y Z (I know there are some pairs of common tags with just one crossover question together).

Separately, you point out that transfer and trade are distinct enough, especially if considered terms of art, that they should have their own tags. Including the differentiation in their wiki would be helpful for others that are unaware of the difference, and get confused over why we split them or where to use each one.

@Nij I understand, though I don't quite have that philosophy (and that is not a network-wide philosophy, at minimum; as a bare example, look at Stack Overflow, python, vba, etc. prefer not to use tags quite in the manner you suggest.)

I definitely think trade would be distinct from transfer, but my discussion is more centered around whether trade needs to exist at all - a tag shouldn't exist unless someone might use it as their main reason for looking at a question, otherwise it's not a useful tag. I very much like the "has to be able to be the only tag on a question" test, and trade doesn't meet that IMO.

It's possible that transfer does have a reason to exist - I'm not a euro football expert or interested in it particularly - but I have a hard time imagining anyone wanting to search for questions about trades, personally.

In either case, in the Lebron James question-at-hand, I think probably it doesn't fit, because the question isn't really about trades at all; it's about Lebron being effectively a GM in all elements, even though they do ask about trades, sort of.