« first day (1410 days earlier)      last day (1922 days later) » 

5:35 AM
@user26857 Looking at the votes on the new post, there are 22 upvotes on the answer for the synonym and 9 upvotes on the answer against. So definitely more people support synonymizing these tags with ideals. So maybe you could suggest a synonym. (After all, you brought up this issue again in comments on the main and you also made clear that you are for removing/synonymizing (maximal-dieals) and (prime-ideals).) — Martin Sleziak 42 secs ago
 
 
2 hours later…
7:47 AM
@MartinSleziak I've proposed to keep only the ideals tag, and remove the other two. — user26857 6 mins ago
@user26857 Making the two tags synonymous with ideals basically does that with two additional advantages: 1) The users cannot create the two tags anew. 2) All posts which are currently tagged by any of those two tags would be now automatically tagged ideals. In any case, if you have some different suggestion from the two posted in the linked post, you can post another answer. And if needed, we can discuss this further in chat. — Martin Sleziak 34 secs ago
Possible alternatives would be: A) Manual retagging. (This would probably retag too many questions.) B) Burnination. (If needed, even blacklisting.)
I do not really see what would be downside to making synonyms $\to$ and $\to$ .
Hi, gebruiker. Sorry for pings on meta - but from the several discussions involving this tags, this was the one where user26857 could be pinged (since they edited your post.)
BTW I am not sure what exactly you meant by "motivating/campaining" in this comment. @gebruiker
I agree with this answer. I think some motivation/campaigning is in place: Here I elaborated on my thoughts. As you can see there, IMHO the same thing should be done with some other tags, which I consider "of the same type". — gebruiker yesterday
 
Never mind
 
If some tags are discussed on meta, then users who visit meta become aware that they might be problematic.
 
There were a lot of upvotes to the answer, but no-one had yet made an argument on: why they felt they would like to upvote that answer\
Since I already explained how I feel about them in another post I just posted a link
 
ok, I suppose I see your point
 
I figured that people aggreeing with me could upvote that comment
 
8:00 AM
The reasons why I posted the two poll answers was that nobody posted any answer arguing for either of the possible courses of action.
Basically the only reaction to the new post which was giving some argument why should go in some way was this comment:
With the same reasoning we can merge tags for banach and normed spaces, but we must not do this. Soooo.... — Norbert Apr 12 at 19:43
 
The two poll answers were a good idea. It started to look like people were somewhat indefferent about the subject. No we see a clear tendency towards merger.
 
Well, to be honest I do not feel strongly about either option. If the two tags are kept, that is fine with me. If they are synonymized, I can live with that.
That is basically the reason why I asked somebody else to suggest tag synonym.
 
BTW The problem of tags being to specific also holds (IMHO) for the ones @pjs36 posted here tuesday.
 
We will see whether user26857 will say something on meta or in chat about those tags related to iealds.
 
@MartinSleziak I would, but I can't.
Yes, let's wait and see.
 
8:07 AM
@gebruiker I suppose one of them has already been removed. As for those tags, perhaps users who are active in those areas should be the ones who say whether those tags can be useful.
Which probably means calculus and numerical methods...?
BTW the tag-creator did not bother to created tag-wiki.
 
Not uncommon
Perhaps, badge-hunting...
 
There is also badge for creating/ediing tag-wikis IIRC. (Is it called research assistant?)
Current status of those tags: 4 questions; 12 questions; 1 question; 2 questions; 2 questions; 1 question.
The tag was removed.
In fact, I have asked about those tags in the main chatroom in hope of getting some feedback: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/29117201#29117201
 
I've quickly looked over the questions with the tag: tangent-line. They all seem to bee comming from fairly low-rep users. Why does this matter? Low-rep users aren't always aware of the workings of the site. They tend to add as much tags as possible (all in good will) without really considering how these tags will help to attract "the right crowd". This really goes back to my "to precice argument" (sorry for repeating that so much).
 
8:24 AM
I am not sure what you mean by "to precice argument".
Do you mean this?
@quid To be fair, when a tag is to specific for a question is of course decided by an arbitrary line in the sand, differing per person. I just feel very strongly that a majority of people would agree with me on which side of the line these two belong. Also the number of followers of these tags does not speak in favour of prolonging their life span. In any case, you would surely agree with me that if they stay, they should be merged to one tag: (ideals) (based on your very well put "adjectives argument"). — gebruiker May 31 '15 at 15:40
Probably not.
 
It's what I try to explain in my answer. "Tags which elaborate on the content of a pecific question." I thought my Noetherian-module-example was quite demonstrative.
Actually yes. I had forgotten I posted that.
 
Well, to use Norbert's example, I do not think that fact that the question contains the phrase "Banach space" means that it should not be tagged .
But I certainly agree that would probably not be a good tag.
 
Banach-spaces are indeed a whole other story. Perhaps I've been a bit too indiscriminate, in suggesting that the same arguments could hold for all tags which are basically adjectives. But it's still how I feel about the maximal/prime-ideals tags.
BTW, I don't meen to be rude, but I must go. I've a train to cach. I will come back to check on the progress some time later (perhaps after the weekend). Thak you for the feedback.
 
8:54 AM
No problem. I don't think that this is a pressing issue. (And I am not even sure we have anything to add to what we have already said here.)
I will have to go AFK quite soon, too.
 

« first day (1410 days earlier)      last day (1922 days later) »