2
$\begingroup$

While editing this question, I noticed that we have a tag for as well as one for . A slightly deeper than superficial look indicates that is apparently a synonym of --it appears it was used once and then later linked to .

Since it seems completely unnecessary, can we merge the tag?

$\endgroup$
2

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

Sure. Done.

In the future just raise such non-controversial merge requests1 in chat (as opposed to meta), and a moderator will take action.

Note that synonyms are reversible while merges are irreversible (=hard to unshuffle). This is why we often hesitate to perform merges.

--

1 I changed OP's original wording burninate request into merge request, because that is technically the relevant term for the tag. More generally, a (typically non-existent) tag name is burninated to prevent its potential future creation if the Phys.SE community decides so. See e.g. this and this meta posts. In contrast to a merge request, a burninate request requires intervention from the SE team outside Phys.SE to be implemented.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I guess I figured all burninate requests should be done in meta, but duly noted. Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Nov 5, 2014 at 14:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's just not as fun without the fire-breathing dragon in the answer... $\endgroup$
    – tpg2114
    Commented Nov 5, 2014 at 22:53
  • $\begingroup$ @tpg2114: I added a footnote. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic Mod
    Commented Nov 6, 2014 at 11:27
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, okay. I still like that dragon though! $\endgroup$
    – tpg2114
    Commented Nov 6, 2014 at 17:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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