Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

There are a lot of LINQ tags in Stack Overflow: , , , and a lot of crazy stuff. There one big tag that doesn't follow the more or less general pattern of linq-to-, and that is: . Are there any chances of getting that renamed to ? I know I could go and edit the 1300 or so questions myself, but I'd rather not.

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by CRABOLO, Infinite Recursion, Emrakul, rene, Doorknob Jan 10 '15 at 13:04

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question pertains only to a specific site in the Stack Exchange Network. Questions on Meta Stack Exchange should pertain to our network or software that drives it as a whole, within the guidelines defined in the help center. You should ask this question on the meta site where your concern originated." – CRABOLO, Infinite Recursion, Emrakul, rene, Doorknob
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

This goes hand in hand with the many suggestions to have some kind of tag editing tool. The biggest problem right now is that it is a lot of power to be giving users and they could do some pretty dangerous stuff to the database with it. Consistency is something we should definitely strive for when it comes to tags, however, so at the very least we could make topics like this and have them manually do it.

share|improve this answer

I want all the linq-to-XXX tags changed to linqtoXXX.

share|improve this answer
No! That would break google searches matching the tag text. Multiple words in tags need a separator, because they are often the only place those words are mentioned in the question. – Joel Coehoorn Jun 30 '09 at 18:16
great point by Joel – Jeff Atwood Jul 1 '09 at 6:37
I was being facetious. – Won't Jul 1 '09 at 13:02
Which is probably why it got down voted. – Brad Gilbert Jul 1 '09 at 16:31
NO! SHOCK AND AWE. – Won't Jul 1 '09 at 17:19
The only shock I see, is that this answer doesn't have more down-votes. – Brad Gilbert Jul 29 '09 at 4:39

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