3
$\begingroup$

I think whatever the difference between (60 questions) and (247 questions) might possibly be, in practice these tags are used interchangeably. Therefore I suggest hard-merging the less popular into .

Update after @Glen_b's answer: I find that tags that are subsets of other tags tend to create confusion, so I would argue this should be avoided. It seems to me that there is a lot of questions about definitions marked with and not with , and so having separate sub-tag is not being very helpful.

Update 2 after further discussion: After some further reflection, I realized that my objection to sub-tags was not as warranted as I originally thought. We actually have many sub-tags that are pretty successful, e.g. exists together with and they are both used a lot. So I must admit that my suggestion was not very well thought through.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

I haven't investigated all questions using those tags; I go by recollection of having seen both used a few times recently.

What I recall seems to be consistent with 'terminology' being used in ways where 'definition' doesn't really fit, such as the sense "how should I refer to/describe/explain this?" type questions ... such as in this recent question.

... which use makes the two not-synonyms.

However, by suggesting that definition merge into terminology, you'd only need that terminology encompassed definition - and for that, there may be some argument.

I'd lean toward keeping them separate, but it's not something I feel strongly about.

$\endgroup$
10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In general I find that tags that are subsets of other tags tend to create confusion, so I would argue this should be avoided. E.g. if there are lots of questions about definitions marked with [terminology] and not with [definition], then having separate sub-tag [definition] is not being very helpful. Looking at the page with newest [terminology] questions, I see quite a bit of those. $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Dec 9, 2014 at 23:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I tend to favour the status quo and thus agree with @Glen_b.. To me questions of definition do blur into questions of terminology, but they can be distinct. Often terminology doesn't correspond to a formal definition (e.g. I talk about looking for pattern or structure in data, and if someone doesn't understand I can try explaining what I mean in other words, but there's no formal definition out of sight). A recent question about gold standard and ground truth is another case where there is terminology, but it tends to be used informally. $\endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    Dec 11, 2014 at 10:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Nick and Glen: I can see the distinction you are making, I am just not sure what to do with sub-tags (in general, and also in this case). Should I retag a question about a definition tagged with [terminology] to [definition], if I see or happen to edit one? Should I add [definition] in addition to [terminology]? Does this then mean that all questions with [definition] should ideally have [terminology] as well? Should we maybe add to the tag excerpt of [terminology] something like "Please use [definition] for questions about definitions"? $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Dec 11, 2014 at 11:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @amoeba Use your judgement: it will be good. I see no objection to using both [definition] and [terminology] wherever both make sense. I don't have a feeling for which is the more likely search term. $\endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    Dec 11, 2014 at 12:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think generally speaking, if there's a more general and a more specific tag, where one could be regarded as a subset of the other, if the more specific tag applies, you would not use the more general one unless it also applied outside that inclusion of the more specific sense. $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Dec 11, 2014 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Nick and Glen: After some further reflection, I realized that my objection to sub-tags was not as warranted as I originally thought. We actually have many sub-tags that are pretty successful, e.g. [multiple-regression] exists together with [regression] and they are both used a lot. So I must admit that my suggestion was not very well thought-through. $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Dec 11, 2014 at 22:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's interesting that you mention that specific pair -- I had the same pair in mind as I constructed my previous comment. $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Dec 11, 2014 at 23:32
  • $\begingroup$ Hi @Glen_b, I noticed that my tag synonym suggestion about [terminology]/[definition] from last December is still in the system marked as pending (pretty amazing that they never expire): stats.stackexchange.com/tags/…. As we decided that these two tags should not be merged, can you as a mod perhaps somehow reject this pending suggestion and make it disappear? I cannot even revoke my own vote; this whole tag synonym voting system is just awful. $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Oct 15, 2015 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ @amoeba I think that did it. I agree, the tag synonym setup is not good. $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Oct 15, 2015 at 16:10
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, @Glen_b! By the way, when I look at the list of synonyms I see another old pending synonym suggested by StasK in Oct 2014. It has zero votes and does not appear on the "suggested" tab. Strange. I guess if you can somehow get a hold of it, it can be removed too. $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Oct 15, 2015 at 16:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .