is controversial name (rename if you know a better one), and it certainly requires some synonyms: , , , , etc.

1 Answer 1


I've renamed to , because a tag name that uses a non-necessary, non-consensual abbreviation is a very bad name.

I don't think we need to preemptively define synonym. is close enough that I hope we can do without it. While a lot of synchronization issues are related to files, there are other things such as time that are not [file-synchronization], so we shouldn't have a generic tag.

  • +1: By SE Tradition synonyms are not preemptively defined. Feb 12, 2014 at 2:07
  • @Oxinabox I can think of one reason to preemptively define synonyms: to preserve tags upon migrations when different sites have chosen different tag names. But we have time to worry about that, we won't be taking migrations just yet. (Another reason is sites with bilingual tags, but this only applies to a few language sites.) Feb 12, 2014 at 4:57
  • That is a good one. I tend to kinda disagree with the policy of not preempting synonyms. But i agree with consistancy of rules more Feb 12, 2014 at 4:58

You must log in to answer this question.

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