I was answering this question and saw that it was tagged [molecular-dynamics] which surprised me, since it is nothing to do with MD. I thought I would edit it to include the tag [Monte-Carlo], only to find that it doesn't exist. That surprised me more. Although I can understand that some questions about Monte Carlo simulation might be better suited to Computational Science SE, or even conceivably Math or Stats SE, many such questions are intimately connected with the physics of the system, and would be a good fit here (IMHO). I can't find much serious discussion of this here on Meta.

If I finally get up to the reputation level needed to create new tags, and attempt to create [Monte-Carlo], should I expect some counter-arguments?

up vote 8 down vote accepted
  • Concerning questions about Monte-Carlo, they should first of all be tagged with the tag and possibly the tag.

  • Whether a new tag [X] should be introduced depends on various factors, such as, e.g.,

    1. Nearby tags: each question can only support 5 tags.
    2. Are people actual going to use the [X] tag, or is it just collecting dust? If tag [X] is only applied on, say, 10% of all subject X questions, it may be more fruitful to search for the word X directly, rather than to search for a tag [X].
    3. The interests of the Phys.SE community is not uniformly distributed over all physics topics. Certain areas of physics may call for more refined tagging than others.
    4. Phys.SE is user-driven. If a user volunteer to be a curator for a new tag [X], it is more likely to be realized.
  • Reminder to everyone: If you see errors in a post (such as, e.g. a tag that doesn't belong), you are encouraged to edit/leave a comment, whichever seems most appropriate (and provided the main original intent of the post is not altered).

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .