I wrote up these notes about a month ago and just found them. I could really use a second opinion or two. I notice there's a whole question about how my whole thesis is wrong, but that doesn't automatically mean it's without merit. That said, forgive my layman's take on everything.
Addition is...
@MartinSleziak That is a good observation, but it is a point favoring a gradient tag instead of a div-grad-curl if I understood correctly. (At least in principle.) With regards to the previous message, yes I agree with that. The comparison was just to give a quick idea of how I "felt" about the tag.
@TravisWillse The fact that they are a "canonical trio" does not sell it to me as a good point for being put together in a single tag. It matters if they effectively appear together in a significant portion of questions. One thing which would sell the idea to me is to verify whether this is the case. Preferably, questions other than "Compute the curl and div of these vector fields.", "Show that div(curl(F))=0." and vector identities involving them in general.
For instance, searching the vector-analysis together with the keyword "gradient", if I'm not mistaken, the first 4 pages only had the following question involving them, which falls in the kind of example I mentioned above.
I have some troubles with vector identities for the gradient and curl operators, for example something like the gradient of the vector or the cross product :
Vector calculus identities
since i have not took any course in multivariate calculus (in fact i need such formulas in electromagnetic) , ...
Only today I noticed that there are the tags geometric-series and geometric-progressions. I am not really sure whether it's better to keep them separate or not.