There are currently three questions with the sysv tag ; I don't think this really adds much. It is used to describe "sysv-like" behavior, and cases where it is used would be better served by describing how it is relevant, in the context of an answer or question, not as a tag or as shorthand.
I think the other tags cover the init behavior and sysV-ish behavior well enough.
Since this could be dragout, can we just rename the tag to sysv-init. That way we are very clear that we are talking about System V init scripts, which seems to be the topic of the questions.
We should synonymize with init since both are intrinsically related (if you are doing a SysV-like script, is likely you will use it for init).
If there's a better tag (that already describes what this does) we could merged it in and symlink... But I'm not sure I see the utility of removing it for the sake of removing it.
In this case there are other init styles and managers.
Letting people specify both upstart and sysv lets users differentiate or draw attention to what their question really means.
init is currently being used to describe both sysv and upstart scripts.
init.d has overlap but is hardly the right description.
I agree it doesn't add much but it also doesn't hurt much. I'd be for leaving it as is. If anything, I'd be suggesting merging init.d into sysv. At least then we're calling it the right thing.
init is already used to describe both vaguely. Whatever happens, there are always going to be at least three tags for the two types of init system. Four if systemd ever gets enough traction.