So if I understand you correctly, the suggestion is to create (stieltjes-integral) tag - which would cover Riemann-Stieltjes, Lebesgue-Stieltjes and some other similar types fo integral. Would we at the same time remove completely the recently created (riemann-stieltjes-integral) tag? Would it be replaced by the two tags - riemann and stieltjes - in the questions about this topic? — Martin Sleziak yesterday

When I made my comment, I hadn't realized that the tag had already been created, so maybe it's better not to mess with things now. But I think that most of the time, the #stieltjes-integral tag (I don't know how to make tags become links in comments, but people can click on the links in the previous comment) would be the only one needed. This is because the Stieltjes aspect is the unusual one; the underlying notion of integral is less likely to be important. Of course, when both aspects are important, then one would use both tags. — Toby Bartels 12 hours ago

Well, there are only three examples of the new tag so far, so it wouldn't be hard to switch. Of these, the two questions by @Shatabdi Sinha (and edited by John Ma) want help evaluating a Stieltjes integral, so they would need only a #stieltjes-integral tag, just as asking for help evaluating an ordinary integral would not need a #riemann-integration tag. The other question, by EternusVia, is more theoretical, but it doesn't even mention integration. While Stieltjes integration is related, #bounded-variation (or the rarely used #total-variation) would probably be a better tag. — Toby Bartels 12 hours ago

Would it be possible to suggest what would the tag-info of the suggested look like? (The tag-info should contain some basic advice to help other users make decision when to use the tag. And maybe some basic info about the notion, possibly including some links.) If you - or somebody else who knows about this topic @quid - would be willing to include this into the answer, I guess this might help to gain support for the tag from other users. (The suggestion is currently at $+1$.) — Martin Sleziak 6 secs ago