# Let’s standardise some tags

Let’s standardise some tags.

For instance, there are already two competing conventions at work:

Either both should use a dash, or none should.

I propose the slightly more readable variant: using dashes to separate ‹tech› from “seq”. That is:

• Totally agree, but let's see how the site evolves – llrs May 17 '17 at 10:49
• While at it let's create a list of tags we should avoid using/creating. – zx8754 May 17 '17 at 11:33
• Do you think it is OK to copy paste the tag description/info from other SE sites? – zx8754 May 17 '17 at 11:52
• @zx8754 yes, the license definitely allows that. – Konrad Rudolph May 17 '17 at 11:54
• Agree, but unlike @Llopis, I'm ok with a little intelligent design before evolution kicks into high gear. What's the best way to do this? Edit tags that don't conform. In other SE sites, I'm way more likely to use a tag that has a big number next to it. – kevbonham May 17 '17 at 12:59
• @kevbonham I think we can be permitted to be more authoritative about it. Case in point, I think we can agree that scrnaseq is a terrible tag, and that we should go with my suggestion. – Konrad Rudolph May 17 '17 at 13:03
• @KonradRudolph I agree (I might not use italicized terrible), and I just checked, it looks like I already have the authority to change that tag. I've never been in a community at this early a stage, what's the typical etiquette for modifying other people's questions? – kevbonham May 17 '17 at 13:07
• @kevbonham shrug. I’d wait a bit more but since this got +7 votes so far and nobody so far raised an object i’d just edit the tag fairly soon. That said, I think you need 500 votes to edit on your own. Otherwise it’s put up for review but barely any user can already access the review queue. – Konrad Rudolph May 17 '17 at 13:11
• @KonradRudolph In this case, sc-rna-seq should probably be preferred because xrna usually refers to a type of RNA, not the biological system it comes from (mRNA, tRNA, piRNA, etc. vs. single cell RNA and bulk RNA) – Michael Schubert May 18 '17 at 21:48
• @MichaelSchubert Does anybody call it "sc-RNA-seq" though? I've never seen it. It's scRNA-seq. – Konrad Rudolph May 19 '17 at 11:39