is undefined but should refer to the MS Word file extension (like does). However, it is synonomized with . It should be unsynonomized (or is that dissynonomized?), the relevant questions retagged from to , and the tag defined.

is synonomized under , but both are meta tags that can refer to almost any user file that contains readable contents. They can probably be simply deleted. If tagging questions to differentiate reference to the user file from of, say, software installation/configuration is useful, application-specific tags should be created.

  • 2
    @allquixotic - come on. I know you can do it.
    – fixer1234
    Nov 18, 2014 at 21:51
  • 1
    Writing off [doc], [document] and [documents] ? Nov 18, 2014 at 21:54
  • Note: if a tag is synonymised, it will never have a tag wiki/excerpt of it's own - it simply acts as a redirect to the main tag (so when you say it's 'undefined', well, it's a moot point) :). As for file-type tags like [doc] and [docx], something is... off with them, but I'm not sure what at this stage :/. I may revisit if I can articulate what it is that's bothering me. For now, I agree with everything here
    – Robotnik
    Nov 18, 2014 at 23:01
  • 1
    I agree that document, and documents serve no useful purpose, and application-specific tags should be used. Typically I'm not a fan of file-type tags either, generally they don't seem to be used for questions that are actually about the file-type, but rather for questions about using PROGRAM-NAME to create/edit/view that file type. However given the popularity of the doc file-format I would not be surprised if it could generate enough real questions about it to justify its existence. For now I agree with elimination of all three tags.
    – Robin Hood
    Nov 21, 2014 at 2:51
  • @RobinHood - So are you saying to kill or keep [doc]?
    – fixer1234
    Nov 21, 2014 at 3:12
  • @fixer1234 Kill,
    – Robin Hood
    Nov 21, 2014 at 7:10


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .