Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
201 to 250 of 286
We seemed to have both a [sequences-and-series] tag as well as a [sequence] tag:
the latter is perhaps redundant?
I just noticed that there is a (recent?) 'homework' tag and somebody (not OPs) tagging things with this.
For several reasons I think having this tag is a bad idea. One is that it can suggest homework is on-topic.
To add to JC: there seems to also now be a [numerical-analysis] http://mathoverflow.net/questions/tagged/numerical-analysis which should definitely be merged into [na.numerical-analysis].
There are many questions marked [operads] and precisely one marked [operad].
I noticed there are two tags: riemannian-geometry, and rg.riemannian-geometry.
[combinatorics] to [co.combinatorics]. again.
And again. [combinatorics] keeps popping up.
Any ideas about what we should do with the [function] tag? It appears to have no informational purpose.
[random] should probably be merged into [pr.probability].
Scott, since it has no information content, we should merge it into [tag-removed] and let time sort things out...
Some tags get created by accidentally splitting hyphenated tags (e.g. [algebraic] [topology] instead of [at.algebraic-topology]). These need to be sorted out periodically to avoid the proliferation of uninformative tags. Major problems regularly occur with the following:
It would be helpful if the community participated with these corrections. If you happen to notice one of these tags on the front page, please correct it immediately. If you happen to be in the mood to go through the lists and sort them out, please send a list of corrections to firstname.lastname@example.org rather than bumping tens of oldies to the front page.
@François, looking at the recent bumps, I guess there's no good way for moderators either?
Sometimes there is and sometimes there isn't. Of course, it's hard to see all the tags that were fixed without bumping. Unfortunately, some bumping is necessary to completely eliminate some tags so that novice users with less than 250 points can't use them.
[functional-analysis] should be merged into [fa.functional-analysis].
I am somewhat naive on the subject, could someone confirm that [operator-theory] and [operator-spaces] are more specific or otherwise different from [oa.operator-algebras].
I can confirm that. It is entirely reasonable for all three tags to coexist.
This may sound strange, but I have a tag unmerge request. The tag [presentation] is used for two completely different meanings (the one involving slides and the one involving groups). It would be good to sort them out.
Is there a smarter way than retagging them one by one?
how should we rename the two tags (or at least one of them)?
Perhaps we could change it to "exposition", then move the group-related questions to something like "presentations-of-groups". In situations like these, I think it would be better to eliminate the ambiguous tag altogether, since it would continue to used in multiple ways in the future. Any thoughts for or against?
@Scott Carnahan: I agree completely, renaming both is the way to go.
I realized that there's only 17 questions tagged [presentation], so probably the fastest solution is indeed retagging them one by one. They are so few, that I could even volunteer for the job. :)
Speed is not the point. You are welcome to sort tags, but only two or three per day since that will bump old questions to the front page.
I have a better idea: divide the list into two parts, those going for exposition and those going for presentations-of-groups (group-presentations?), which ever larger will inherit [presentation] by renaming it (Francois should be able to do that) and the others will be retagged.
If both have the same amount, just pick one and rename it.
Either way we are bound to cut the retag by at least a half.
By the way, why is this question tagged "matrices" twice?
@federico: I think, in response to your comment, or something to that effect, the tag [matrix] was renamed [matrices]. The SE1 software behind MO is evidently not smart enough to know that when [matrices] has already appeared on the list of tags, it should not be added again due to tag renames. Hence the original set of tags "[matrix] [matrices]" becomes the multiset "[matrices] [matrices]"... Fixing it is a simple retag. But whether bumping the question to the front page is worth this I am not sure.
I've merged [presentation] into presentations-of-groups by retagging a question. Those of you with retagging privileges are welcome to replace some of them with a tag like [exposition]. I don't think it is necessary to retag closed questions.
Thanks! I have found a total of three non-closed questions to retag, and I have edited them.
Isn't RSK an extension of RS? Or is the distinction not important?
There is one random-walks that should be merged with random-walk (singular).
[rsk] no longer exists.
[random-walks] no longer exists.
[functions] no longer exists.
I have merged [quantum-group] into [quantum-groups].
Can we merge [differential-geometry] to its arXiv counterpart [dg.differential-geometry]?
I noticed that someone recreated the tag [matrix] that was merged into [matrices] some months ago. Now there are around 500 questions tagged "matrices" and around 20 tagged "matrix". Is there a way to prevent re-creating a deleted or merged tag?
@federico poloni: I've merged the tags again.
I do not know of a way to prevent the creation of tags. As long as we are talking about things we'd like to see, perhaps there should be a system (outside our brains) that not only included tags, but encoded relationships between them together with more specific information concerning their pertinence to the questions.
Emil, we already have [set-theory] :-)
Periodic reminder to the community...
Another tag to add to Francois' comment above is complex.
Sorry if this has been addressed before, but I believe that la.linear-algebra should be merged with linear-algebra.
Tim, done. (It's a recurring problem.)
I think [group] and [groups] with 2 and 5 questions, resp., should be merged into [gr.group-theory].