# Should we clean-up some “Catch-all” tags?

There are some tags- which becomes "catch-all" i.e. they are essentially redundant and can be applied anywhere or they don't quite have very direct classification meaning to the question.

Some of the list is as below:

1. algorithms
2. frequency
3. reference-request
4. soft-question
5. random : may should be called random-numbers
6. terminology
7. measurement
8. source
9. timing
10. phase : its a correct term -but a horrible name for tag.
11. nomenclature

Should we cleanup some of these tags? and remove them permanently?

• No response to this? – Dipan Mehta May 16 '12 at 14:19
• ah in fact, I've been doing that as I go along. When I see a post with a tag that I consider "strange"/catch-all, I simply look up the tag. If it's sub-5 questions, I look into whether they could be retagged better, and then just do that, making tags disappear. In fact, I've made signal and processing disappear (I hope), since they carry zero entropy. – Marcus Müller Apr 22 '17 at 14:41

Cleaning tags or giving them some distinct content is a good idea. However, I have the feeling that algorithms, reference-request, measurement are useful to me, unless you propose a replacement? I may have added those tags to first posts, or when editing.
I believe that tags should be considered by the relations, with respect to antonyms, dual, or complementary terms. For instance, algorithms makes sense to me with respect to theory.
But I am surprised by addition, seldom used (and potentially catch-all), while additive refers to a much more interesting property of signals and systems