QWhat's with all these fancy names for the various regular languages on the 'problems' page?

In computational complexity we usually give specific names to computational problems, so that we can easily refer to them as we discuss their properties: e.g., names like sat, clique, tqbf, reachability, primality, halting, iso are widely used.

In contrast, the culture in automata theory seems to be different. An article introducing a regular language (e.g., as a witness problem having a desired property) uses for it only a generic temporary name, which is good enough for the particular article but not for any broader discussion that could follow: for example, the names used by Sakoda Sipser 1978 for two-way liveness, one-way liveness, and separability had been just C, B, and L.

To allow a coherent continuous discussion on the properties of such problems, it is necessary to follow the practice of computational complexity and give specific names to them. Since no such names are widely accepted, many are just being introduced by this site.