I don't see why these are all split up. Separately, they don't really make any difference. In general, we're talking about "HTML Lists" and not an ordered or unordered list specifically. Whether or not it is ordered or unordered tends to make no difference with the questions, since oftentimes it's a CSS-related question about lists, which all use list-style and its sub-properties, or about nested lists, which aren't specific to either one (and usually get tagged along with ).

Going of the idea of being an expert in the tag, if you are an expert in any one of them you'd most definitely be an expert in all of them. A list item is part of a list, so there's definitely no point in having that separate tag. I propose that all of these tags be merged and/or synonymized into one single tag (which makes most sense to cover them all). The tags that currently exist:

× 423
× 382
× 118
× 82
× 66

Note: and are not related to this, although a few HTML list questions have used them.

It'd be preferable that synonyms be created for these so that users typing in "ul", "ol", or "li" can easily find the correct tag.

Update: I have gotten the tags to a place where and are currently suggested as synonyms of , but now we need either 4 people who have 5 votes in that tag or a moderator to push them through. I've also been going through the list of questions that are tagged with both and and converting to the correct tag.

closed as off-topic by animuson, ShaWiz, 3ventic, Martijn Pieters, random Jun 4 '14 at 18:49

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." – animuson, ShaWiz, 3ventic, Martijn Pieters, random
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 6
    Having the tags separate is a huge advantage for search. Search for ul, and the results are worthless. Search for [ul] and you're getting somewhere. How the heck is a newbie supposed to know that he should search for nested-lists when he thinks that his problem is about <ul> elements? – Awesome Poodles Feb 25 '12 at 22:57
  • 12
    @Brock: If they're synonymized, searching for [ul] would search for [html-lists]. It's pretty easy to find questions specifically about <ul> from the titles, and there are very few scenarios where they'd need to find a question specifically about unordered lists. – animuson Feb 25 '12 at 22:58
  • 3
    I did not know that synonym-search's worked like that. It even works on the Tags page. I withdraw my objection. – Awesome Poodles Feb 26 '12 at 0:50
  • Ah, just about to ask this question. +1 – kevinji Feb 26 '12 at 1:30
  • I've synonymized [unordered-list] and [ordered-list]. Do you still want li and ul synonymized? – Robert Harvey Mar 3 '12 at 2:49
  • @Robert: Yes, I couldn't suggest those ones yet because they have more questions on them. – animuson Mar 3 '12 at 2:50
  • Hmm, looks like I don't have the ability to do that either. – Robert Harvey Mar 3 '12 at 2:51
  • @Robert: I was going to continue retagging [html]+[list] questions to get above the [ul] mark, push that one through, which would put it past [li] to push that one through too. Also, when do synonymized questions get retagged to the parent tag? Is it not instant? – animuson Mar 3 '12 at 2:52
  • I would have to merge them. Right now they are just synonymized. – Robert Harvey Mar 3 '12 at 2:56
  • OK, I think I got it. I merged [unordered-list] and [ordered-list] with [html-lists], and synonymized [ul] and [li] to [html-lists] – Robert Harvey Mar 3 '12 at 2:59
  • @Robert: Shouldn't those be merged in too? I think most questions which are tagged with [ul] are also tagged with [li]. – animuson Mar 3 '12 at 3:00
  • @Robert: Cool, you should post your usual CW done answer so I can accept it. ;P – animuson Mar 3 '12 at 3:04
  • Do we need a synonym for [ol]? – Robert Harvey Mar 3 '12 at 3:04
  • @Robert: Umm, [ol] never existed but it could be useful, I suppose. – animuson Mar 3 '12 at 3:05

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