Given the discussion, I tend to be gradually convinced that creating [tag:small-uncountable-cardinals] is a good idea, and a good counterpart to the existing quite broad [tag:large-cardinals], which currently has almost 500 occurrences. I initially expressed that all this could be embedded into [tag:continuum-hypothesis], but several people have argued against this and I'm fine with those arguments. I'd like, anyway, that one additional benefit of the discussion would be to clarify the role/meaning of the tag [tag:infinite-combinatorics]; I don't think it's a separate issue as the intersection is significant.

Also, I'm against [tag:cardinal-characteristics], 

 - because this will result in a misunderstanding of the its meaning (will be misused at many occasions), as it will be widely understood as "properties of cardinals", and I don't think that properly understanding the meaning of a tag should be a privilege for those very specialists of the given subjects,

 - because "characteristics" seems to be used only by a proper subcommunity among the people dealing with such cardinals (I can substantiate this claim upon request), so a few questions naturally fitting with this tag will not be tagged so (or later by other people) — a typical such tag in another area seems to be [tag:calculus-of-variations].

 - because the restriction to be $\le 2^{\aleph_0}$ makes it too restrictive. Cardinals such as $(2^{\aleph_0})^+$ or $2^{2^{\aleph_0}}$ should be considered as small, as opposed to large cardinals. Small/large is not a completely defined boundary (roughly, large would be at least the smallest inaccessible) but I don't think it's not a problem, and it's even better than setting artificial boundary.

 - because I can't detect any sensible argument making it better than [tag:small-uncountable-cardinals].