# Should we have a [lambert-w] tag?

From a small discussion on How do I solve this equation involving a logarithm? there came a question should there be a tag for Lambert W function or not.

My concern, which may not be valid, is that this is only a tool for solutions rather than a topic for questions. On the other hand the same thing could probably be said about other things in mathematics which do have their own tag.

It was suggested that this would be brought to meta for discussion.

$$\textbf{Should there be a tag for the Lambert W function?}$$

Option 2: We use the tag
Option 3: We do absolutely nothing (drinking beer counts as nothing)
Option 4: Anything else, which you may choose to add in the comments as a valid solution.

(P.S. Option 3 is available in conjuction with any other option)

Edit: Since it seems that this is going nowhere, I added three answers for the first three options. Please only upvote those, do not downvote. We'll give it a few days and decide.

## Conclusion:

It seems that the users (Sep. 7th, 16:14 UTC. Vote count is 0 in favour, 12 against, 3 for beer), at large, disagree with the idea to have a special tag as [lambert-w]. Now comes to the other question (which may be addressed in a separate tag, at a different time) - whether or not the current tags of special functions (the but rather things like ) are needed, and how to decide what is the rule of thumb for starting such tag in the future.

Thanks to all the participants!

-
Well, if you disagree (that there should be a tag), then maybe you should start a meta discussion! –  The Chaz 2.0 Sep 4 '11 at 15:53
Without backing this statement up, but rather only giving a short insight into my point of view, I do not think that there should be such a tag. –  mixedmath Sep 4 '11 at 16:07
For the record: I don't really lean to either for or against the creation of the tag. –  Guess who it is. Sep 4 '11 at 16:10
If we agree that the Lambert W function is a special function, we could use the existing [special-functions] tag. –  Américo Tavares Sep 4 '11 at 16:13
I'm inclined against it. For example, we don't have a tag (exponential-function) either. Those who know about Lambert $W$ will probably know what special functions are and use that tag (hopefully). It won't help those whose answers unexpectedly involve Lambert $W$, so I think (special-functions) would do as well. –  t.b. Sep 4 '11 at 17:17
Come to think of it: We have gamma-function, zeta-functions, riemann-zeta, so my previous argument seems to break down. Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion but still tend to be against [lambert-w]. –  t.b. Sep 4 '11 at 17:35
...and elliptic-functions. Hmm... –  Guess who it is. Sep 4 '11 at 17:49
Someone who knows that the answer involves Lambert $W$ would not need to ask the question. So the tag would only be applied retroactively. –  André Nicolas Sep 5 '11 at 7:56
Aw man, only Asaf and me were for the beer? I guess the new tag is a "no"... :D –  Guess who it is. Sep 6 '11 at 1:06
Things have changed by now :) –  barto Apr 8 at 10:34
@barto: For a while now. I think the topic was brought up like a year ago. meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/12683/622 –  Asaf Karagila Apr 8 at 10:46

Please only upvote this answer, and the others, so we can see how many people are in favour of any of the first three options

## No. We don't need another tag for this, I think we should use special-functions instead.

-

Please only upvote this answer, and the others, so we can see how many people are in favour of any of the first three options

## Yes, I think there should be a lambert-w tag. I am going to upvote this answer.

-

Please only upvote this answer, and the others, so we can see how many people are in favour of any of the first three options

## I am completely neutral about this and really have no opinion one way or the other. In fact I am going to have a beer right now, just to get the vibe into this afternoon laze.

-
As I cannot upvote my own answers, I strongly support this one. Beer included. –  Asaf Karagila Sep 5 '11 at 11:35
I'm still waiting for my "included" beer! –  The Chaz 2.0 Dec 9 '11 at 18:37