8

A while ago, the former tags and were merged with (and kept as synomyms). Caramdir's reasoning for this was that "their implementations are pretty similar and questions and solutions applying to one of them typically apply to the others as well".

In the same spirit, I'd like to discuss two potential merging/synonym measures:

  • and could be combined into a new tag. (In this case, I'm not so sure if solutions are overlapping to a great extend.)

  • and should be combined into . (The TeXniques for controlling widows and orphans are the same, or at least for the most part if you consider tinkering with \Needspace as a separate way to control orphans.)

EDIT: I ask a moderator to implement these merging/synonym suggestions. The new tag names should be (as suggested by Aditya) and .

||||||
  • 5
    To me, titling has a different connotation that titlepage or maketitle. Titling means giving a title to a work. Perhaps, {titles} might be a better tag. – Aditya May 14 '11 at 15:45
  • How about {titlepages} as the main tag? It would be conceptual and consistent with our plural tags. – Stefan Kottwitz♦ May 16 '11 at 15:19
  • 1
    @Stefan: Titles aren't always typeset on their own page (e.g. by default in the article class), so I prefer {titles}. – lockstep May 16 '11 at 15:41
  • done. – Stefan Kottwitz♦ May 20 '11 at 22:39
6

This would be in line with our preferance of concept tags over command tags. might automatically involve further commands such as \title and \author. Often \maketitle is the cause of a question but a titlepage the solution. So I agree with merging into the concept tag .

Sounds reasonable for me too. and are very often treated together, both in books and in questions. For instance, all but one questions deal with too.

I agree with keeping the current tags as synonyms, otherwise I would expect them to reappear soon.

||||||

You must log in to answer this question.

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