There are some questions on meta related to these tags: About [probability-theory] tag and The tags (probability) and (probability-theory). (Relatively old and a bit inconclusive.)

However, the tag-info suggests that the two tags are kept separate on purpose.

The tag-excerpt for probability:

> For basic questions about probability and for questions about calculating a probability, expected value, variance, standard deviation, or similar quantity. For questions about the theoretical footing of probability (especially using [tag:measure theory]), ask under probability-theory instead. For questions about specific probability distributions, use probability-distributions instead.

The tag-excerpt for probability-theory:

> Use this tag only if your question is about the modern theoretical footing for probability, for example probability spaces, random variables, law of large numbers, and central limit theorems. Use probability instead for specific problems and explicit computations. Use probability-distributions for specific distribution functions, and consider stochastic-processes when appropriate.

It seems that there are some user who try to maintain these tags.

The tag (probability-theory) added: data.stackexchange.com/math/query/1105163/… data.stackexchange.com/math/query/1146497/…

The tag (probability-theory) removed: data.stackexchange.com/math/query/1038474/… data.stackexchange.com/math/query/1038477/…

For example, Did added this tag more than 500 times.

Somebody also created a comment template regarding these tags:

> Probability theory is about the measure-theoretic foundations of stochastics. The tag probability-theory should be used for questions concerning this subject, not for questions about calculating a specific probability. Use probability instead, see also meta.

We'll see whether there will be some feedback on this question.

I thought that in this case a separate question might be in fact better - since this influences large number of posts. The tag probability-theory is close to 30k and probability has over 74k questions.

André Nicolas is another user who contributed a lot in these topics and haven't been on the site for a long time.

Top users in those tags: probability and probability-theory.

It would be good to hear from users who are active in these tags regarding the suggestion to synonymize/merge them.

At Martin's invitation I'll discuss an idea for a tag to identify meta-questions about creating "abstract duplicates" or "canonical questions". It is loosely related to the theme of the new Pearl Dive chatroom in spirit (I'd be willing to offer bounties for "canonical answers" to such topics), but I'd solicit the communities advice about which Question deserves to be promoted to this role for a given topic.

My immediate motivating topic is the relation between Horner's method (for evaluating a univariate polynomial) and synthetic division. A variety of such Questions exist on the site, some with Accepted Answers too terse to serve as the sort of comprehensive discussion we want in "abstract duplicates".

So the obvious tag candidates are [abstract-duplicate] and [canonical-question] (or perhaps [canonical-answer]).

Just to emphasize, this would be a new meta-tag.

@hardmath Just to clarify, you want to create a new tag on main or on meta?

On meta.

I see. The term "meta tags" is also used for tags such as (big-list), (soft-question), (reference-request), etc. So I wasn't sure.

So "List of Generalizations of Common Questions" would be an example of a question where the tag you're proposing would be applicable?

Or do you have some example of a post suitable for this new tag at hand?

I am probably misunderstanding for what kind of questions it the tag intended.

The two questions which you linked in the other room would be suitable for the proposed tag: Abstract duplicates vs. canonical question and Please give a clearer definition of “canonical answer” as reason for bounty?

Right, the tag could be applied to those existing Questions. I have in mind an ongoing need to ask about related topics, essentially to solicit help in choosing the best candidates for the "abstract duplicate" treatment. Often an existing Question is edited, and as well an existing Answer there is improved or a new Answer posted to give a comprehensive/definitive treatment in lieu of future posts.

Personally, abstract-duplicate sounds reasonable to me. (And the tag-info could explain in more detail that it is also about discussing canonical questions/answers.)

However, since I only have a vague idea what kind of questions the tag is intended for, it would be useful to wait and see whether somebody else gives you some feedback on the new tag.

Okay, I'll post to the tag maintenance thread on Meta, to see what the Community thinks about adding this new tag (and whether abstract-duplicate is the best choice of naming).

meta tag-suggestion Looking at a recent post, I am a bit surprised that there is no association-bonus tag on our meta. There are several questions about this topic.