I want to create a tag called "pyez" on Stack Overflow, but I do not have required reputations to create one. Can someone please help me?
32704
Can someone please create the tag  on our site? We need to have it because        Foo is a recent/upcoming release / edition / model / episode of a popular, established OS / board game / bike brand / TV show   Foo is a hot new language / ingredient / game   we're currently using some other tag for questions about Foo, but it's causing ambiguity with a separate thing that's also named Foo      This is not a joke post. We get a lot of feature requests that ask for this or that tag to be created, and every time, a discussion ensues wherein people explain that there is no "tag creation department" and that community members create tags just by using them. I'm posting this "question" so that future requests of that type can be closed as a duplicate of this, saving time and eliminating redundant conversations for everyone involved.     See also:
72088
It is observed that the stackexcange permits to downvote/upvote by just having minimum cumulative reputation of all tags even though the member doesn't possess enough reputations in them.  "Subject matter" should be given appropriate higher weightage over clarity, spelling, readability, etc!  I propose, subject to the approval of board of stackexchange, only members whoever possesses minimum appropriate reputations in all tags of the question/answer to permit to upvote/downvote.
67911
I just tried to add a tag for "implementation-defined-behavior" on SO but I couldn't because of the 25 char limit. I had to resort to an abbreviation (), which is rather ugly and to some extent thwarts the purpose of tags, i.e. easy indexing.   Although I acknowledge that too long tag names could be unwieldy, sometimes there are technical terms that cannot be abbreviated in any useful way (especially when there is no widespread acronym).    Could an increase of that limit be considered?     EDIT  This is to respond to all the comments addressed at me that were triggered by the recent news brought up by @Shog9 in .  Shog9 announced that the limit was raised to 35 chars network-wide, thus some people asked me to accept his answer instead of .  TL;DR:  Sorry but, no, I won't accept Shog9's answer. Although I find the change very welcome, I think it is still somehow a sort of a patch for the SE network as it has evolved. A complex system such as SE network is now could well afford another mechanism vetted by high rep users/mods on per-site basis.  More explanation:  I really welcome the change, but this solution would have satisfied me at the time I originally posted my question. After all, 35 chars is probably a reasonable limit for a site like SO, or  where I'm currently active and committed.   At that time, IRRC, the SE network was still very young and there were very few sites on the network that rivaled SO in quality and traffic.  But time has changed since then, and there are sites that have greatly improved and that have the potential of outperforming SO in traffic (after all, there are more people watching TV or practicing mountain walking than programmers out there!).  Given how SE network has evolved, I still think that the right, long term, solution is option #5 in hildred's answer: in short, allow much longer names under the supervision of mods and as a new privilege for high rep users.   Abuse is always a possibility, even with shorter tag names or for other facilities of the sites. I don't see why, apart from some technical reason related to the structure of the system, hildred's solution (or kind of) could not be implemented with the same level of safety/security as other facilities.   There are sites, as it was shown by others, that desperately need a much higher tag length limit, if tags are to be useful for them.   As the name of something increases in length, meaningful abbreviations start to become unintuitive and not unique, hence you cannot expect people to gain any convenience when searching for an abbreviation they don't know about or that they must guess.   In the end, as on of those sites grows, the problem becomes ever worse, because funny abbreviations, with lots of still funnier synonyms, increase, rendering the tag system unreliable and inconvenient.
78769
I attempted to ask a question regarding "object-role-modeling" (it's a design methodology that doesn't get nearly as much attention as it should).  Unfortunately, when I wrote the question, I made a spelling error and assigned it to a non-existent tag "object-role-modelling". I realised my mistake, and changed the tag on my question. But the mis-spelt tag .  I do not want this tag to be in stackoverflow. I really want there to be more object-role-modeling questions on the site, and having two near-identical tags is just going to add confusion.  So, here we have the situation where:   There isn't a single question against this tag The person who added the tag wants to remove it   Is there some way I can do this? If not, should there be?
74590
I wanted to tweet something on the lines of "Stack&nbsp;Overflow is awesome". When I do this kind of stuff, I usually use a username (for example: ) or a hashtag ()  I found , but it seems it is from someone unrelated with Stack&nbsp;Overflow.  Is there a Twitter account I can reference, or should I use a hash-tag? Should I just point to the site?  Thanks!  (Notice: I've seen lots of questions regarding Twitter and Stack&nbsp;Overflow, but those are mostly about integration/login with Twitter for the users accounts; I'm just asking for a single account for Stack&nbsp;Overflow; probably for announcements and PR, which is different)
109819
Over on , I have just tried to create a tag synonym of  for &dagger; since there seems to be some confusion as to which to use, and people end up adding both.  &dagger; Although looking at the tag synonyms of  here, I should probably have done it the other way around.  Instead of just creating the synonym as I expected, it showed me  (which obviously I couldn't vote on myself) as if I were not a moderator. I guess I should have noticed that the button said "Suggest" rather than "Create", but elsewhere on the site, diamond moderator 'suggestions' are rather more binding. *8')  It was then suggested that I needed to do this via the moderation tools, so I had a hunt around and managed to find the moderator tool for tag synonyms and approve my own synonym from there. I now see however that just clicking on the  link would have taken me there anyway.  It seems odd that we can't just create the tag synonym directly from the tag synonym page, and the suggestion mechanism breaks the expectation of moderator suggestions being immediately binding (like flags), so it would be nice if this behaviour could be made more consistent.   Incidentally, I fully expect this to be , and rightly so since it only saves one click, but at least this post will serve as a searchable answer for future diamond moderators who are confused about this. *8')
86112
I need to make a link to create a new node. I need this link to appear on taxonomy term pages so I was going to put it in a block. Nodes can be tagged with taxonomy terms.   How can I make it so the create node form has the term (from the page the link was on) already selected? So if you were on mysite.com/term/1 and and clicked the create node link, the node would have term 1 already selected.   Ive found this module but its in dev for D7 so there another way?   Thanks
34750
Have a look at  which was suggested by . He suggested  tag. I approved because I can see he is an SE employee. So I have two doubts:   Why doesn't he have some required privileges? (as he is suggesting instead of direct editing) If he doesn't have required privileges, how can a normal user suggest an edit for  tags?   Is there any special case here? Just curious to know.
30463
I am not sure it's the right place to post this as it's common to all Stack&nbsp;Overflow sites. I suggest sorting sites by user reputation and then alphabetically in the all-sites list of the Stack&nbsp;Overflow button.
63513
I am quite confused now. I am not sure how much reputation I require to create a new tag.  From   I came to know that I need 250 points to create my own Tag. But I already have the sufficient points, but when I try to create a new tag I am getting a message that I need 1500 rep points. Can anyone clarify this.
14377
Is there a way to configure your Stack Overflow account so that you receive notification emails when posts are made to specific tags?    Or do you simply have to log on to see new posts?
30288
In retrospect of this , I would like to ask the community how they feel about a warning or confirmation (or just special highlighting) on new tag creation.  Everybody hates stock "are you sure?" confirmation, but a lot of tags get created by mistake (and then used ad nauseam).   For example, I think I might have created the  tag by accident. Assuming the right tag was , there would be two tags for c# 4.0, until they are made synonyms. With a warning, some accidental tags could be prevented.
47187
t's actually a good monetizing idea. Make it possible to sign up as an expert (on your tag badges, one would presume) with available hours, set an hourly fee (billed in 15 minutes increments), SE takes a cut and let the "Ask an expert" commence.  Edit: so many downvotes, so quick! Why?
100844
on Ask Different appears to have no name due to invisible Unicode characters:    he's the #2 user on the site:    Why is that allowed? I think it is confusing for users, e.g. when they will see at the bottom of an answer:    It's not clear who answered, not clear what the rep numbers and badges are related to, and not clear how you can @reply to that user in the comments!
63017
We've been out of private beta for only two days, and stackoverflow.com is already ranking high in .  Are there any specific techniques applied in the site? I've been researching the subject for some time and haven't found it to be so easy.   even returns site-links.  ()
6253
I think it would be neat to earn a badge for having X number of profile views. You could have different levels, for example:      Bronze - [Renown]    - 300 views     Silver - [Celebrity] - 1000 views     Gold   - [Eminence]  - 3000 views  I know this really doesn't necessarily &quot;encourage positive behavior&quot; directly, but it is a good indicator that people are either eager to read your other questions/answers (which is likely because you've provided a thoughtful response). It could of course also be that you've offended someone for some reason. Either way, it shows you are participating in the community. What do you think? If you agree, would you suggest any changes on the name/count/type of badges that would be awarded? Bounty added: I'm still interested in whether this will become a badge or not...  General consensus (thus far):  Number of views should be increased Remove gold badge altogether (I didn't like the name celebrity anyway...)  So:      Bronze - [Renown]   - 1000 views     Silver - [Eminence] - 3000 views  Another general problem seems to be &quot;how does this encourage positive behavior&quot;, which I have already outlined above. It's more of a metric that shows your participation in the community through a &quot;wow&quot; factor (again, this could be seen as negative). Why is it even in the profile in the first place if it's a negative thing? Any other thoughts?
5806
The  tag in my Stack Exchange profile links to different sites depending on where it's being viewed:  Profile on StackOverflow:  [tag:CSS] =&gt; https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/css   Profile on StackExchange:  [tag:CSS] =&gt; https://stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/css   Profile on CodeReview:  [tag:CSS] =&gt; http://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/css    I'd like to have these all link to https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/css. You can ; why not add the ability to specify the site with tags? &lt;!-- tag: stackoverflow --&gt;[tag:css] &lt;!--tag: meta --&gt;[tag:feature-request]  The current behavior also cause a bug on my :    All tags send me to find a Panda aka 404 Page Not Found.