I have seen the use of the word "proper Deligne-Mumford stack". Now, it is clear to me what it means for a morphism f of stacks to be proper: as usual it should be representable, and every morphism between schemes obtained from f by base change should be proper.


Now, first I guess that "proper" here actually means "complete". A scheme over a field is complete when the structural morphism to a point is proper. But it does not make sense for a stack to ask that the morphism to the point is proper. Indeed it would be in particular representable, and since a point is a scheme this would imply that the stack itself is a scheme.


Another possibility is that the sentence means "a stack with a proper atlas", so that one cannot speak of proper stacks, but only of proper Deligne-Mumford stacks.


So I am asking here what the standard terminology is.



What is a proper stack?
As requested, an answer on terminology
My favorite reference on basics for DM stacks is [Edidin's paper](http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9805101), which I find much easier to read than Laumon & Moret-Bailly (who of course deal with Artin stacks).


Short summary. Suppose $P$ is a property of morphisms $f:X\to Y$ in the category of schemes:


* If $P$ is local on both $X$ and $Y$ (`local' in appropriate topology, e.g., etale for DM stacks), it makes sense for morphisms of stacks (pass to compatible presentation of both stacks).
* If $P$ is local on $Y$ only, it is easy to define for representable morphisms $F:{\mathcal X}\to{\mathcal Y}$ by changing base to a presentation of ${\mathcal Y}$.
* If $P$ is local on $Y$, but you want to make sense of it for all morphisms, you have to make a special definition --- there is no general approach that works for all properties.
This is what happens with definitions of separated/proper morphism of stacks.


So proper morphism of stacks need not be representable.


