40
$\begingroup$

The younger brother "Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange" will abolished in a week or so,

http://meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/245/theoretical-physics-is-closing

due to the low traffic figures and a general shortage of interest. The overall administrators are able to easily migrate all questions from the defunct Theoretical Physics SE site to Physics SE site but they think it could be viewed as an impolite step because the questions from a differently focused site could be viewed as "intruders".

I personally believe that when it comes to the quality and the degree of relevance, pretty much all questions on the Theoretical Physics SE website are "enough" for Physics SE. Do the moderators of Physics SE agree with me? If they do, could you please agree about some common position, and if you happen to agree with me that the 413 Theoretical Physics SE questions should be uniformly saved and given asylum on Physics SE, could you please go to the page above and inform the meta-moderators of Stack Exchange that you consider the Theoretical Physics SE questions on the exodus to be welcome at Physics SE?

I really believe that there are many questions and answers whose value is vastly higher than those at Physics SE and they could be lost which would be unfortunate.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could you add Astro.SE as well? A quick look-see shows up a whole bunch of awesome P.SE questions. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Apr 25 '12 at 18:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Related: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130342/… . Looks like the SE people are willing to extend the grace peiod if we can't finish off the migration. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Apr 25 '12 at 18:55
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ +1 - thanks for rising this issue. $\endgroup$ – Piotr Migdal Apr 25 '12 at 18:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Manishearth: The duplication issue will be big with Astro, but those duplicates include some really good answers. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Apr 25 '12 at 18:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @dmckee I may have a solution to the dupe/tag issue, see belpw $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Apr 25 '12 at 19:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think that Theoretical Physics should simply be migrated to Physics. Then discussion can go on and the work invested in the site is much more accessible than when the site is closed. $\endgroup$ – Arnold Neumaier Apr 25 '12 at 19:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Let's deal with astro.SE in a separate question. $\endgroup$ – David Z Apr 25 '12 at 19:22
  • $\begingroup$ @david, Important read: discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/187/… $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Apr 25 '12 at 20:13
  • $\begingroup$ @every1: It seems we may have to fix some links as well, take note meta.theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/questions/245/… $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Apr 25 '12 at 20:23
  • $\begingroup$ @Manishearth (2 up): yeah, I read that back when TP was being proposed. The fact that the site has existed for a while and hasn't really taken off changes things somewhat. $\endgroup$ – David Z Apr 25 '12 at 21:38
  • $\begingroup$ It was inevitable that the traffic would be low in a research centered forum. It is the reason I did not consider supporting an "experimental physics"SE. A real research forum would mean brainstorming sessions, i.e. exchange of valuable ideas. One can do that in a closed group of trusted researchers, who acknowledge each other's contribution to the discussion; opening the discussion and solutions to the whole world seems counterproductive as far as what motivates a researcher. $\endgroup$ – anna v Apr 26 '12 at 6:45
  • $\begingroup$ @annav yep, though surprisingly mathoverflow is pretty popular, though it is research-oriented. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Apr 26 '12 at 11:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1, if there is anyone keeping some kind of a vote. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Apr 30 '12 at 14:02
17
$\begingroup$

I've not been following Theoretical Physics as I'm an experimenter, but I can't see how questions that qualified as good, research-level question on theoretical physics could fail to qualify as good questions on this site.

There are a couple of issues that might need consideration

  1. Tagging Are there many tags on Theoretical Physics that are more specific than the ones on Physics? If so should we import them, or re-tag to something more general Also, are there some tags that should be added wholesale to question for Theoretical Physics because there indicated something about the question (i.e. that's it is a theory question) that was assumable on Theoretical Physics?

  2. Duplicates How many will we generate if we simply import the whole Theoretical Physics question base? Of those how many are have really good answers on both sites and need merging?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think it depends on the specific cases and maybe somebody who is enough an expert (Lumo?) should help with retagging, creation of important enough new tags, dublicates, etc. Generally I think this should not be a big problem. $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Apr 25 '12 at 18:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ad1. Tagging - you are right, that some tags may be different. However, I would't worry so much, as: TP.SE don't have any peculiar tagging schemes and tags can be merged. Ad2. I guess there aren't (m)any. I put effort in migrating not research-level questions to physics.SE. $\endgroup$ – Piotr Migdal Apr 25 '12 at 18:57
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I agree 100%. My position all along has been that anything that is on topic for Theoretical Physics is also on topic for Physics. So I think that a wholesale migration of all questions from TP.SE to this site would be perfectly reasonable. $\endgroup$ – David Z Apr 25 '12 at 19:23
  • $\begingroup$ I suggest we add a tag "theoretical-physics" or something like that. $\endgroup$ – Slaviks Apr 25 '12 at 20:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Slaviks I don't think that's necessary, practically our entire site is theoretical physics at some level. We have plenty of more specific tags that would be appropriate. (Unless you mean as a temporary tag for while we retag the migrated questions, then that could be more useful) $\endgroup$ – David Z Apr 25 '12 at 21:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @David [cleanup-theoretical] and[cleanup-astro].. They don't sound misleading, IMO. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Apr 26 '12 at 2:20
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidZaslavsky I think tagging or something like that is obligatory due to attribution conditons in creative common creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 $\endgroup$ – Alex 'qubeat' Apr 28 '12 at 13:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Alex: no, the license only requires attribution to the poster, which is accomplished by a link to their profile. Tagging doesn't come into play with that. $\endgroup$ – David Z Apr 28 '12 at 20:29
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidZaslavsky, it is written "... not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work", e.g. if some person did not post some particular text in something.SE (or may be even did not use/know that site at all), it should be clear attributed. $\endgroup$ – Alex 'qubeat' Apr 30 '12 at 10:02
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidZaslavsky, BTW some users TP simply have not profiles in physics.SE, how to link them? $\endgroup$ – Alex 'qubeat' Apr 30 '12 at 11:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Alex it depends on how the SE team is going to handle the migration. Perhaps they will transfer profiles from TP.SE over to Physics. I will have to check on that and make sure. $\endgroup$ – David Z Apr 30 '12 at 15:14
8
$\begingroup$

More of a comment:

I suggest we steal salvage stuff from Astro.SE as well. A quick look-see turns up some good questions that could survive on P.SE.

I think I have a way to solve @dmckee's issues:

Tag all migrated questions as such (astro or TP), and we can later work through them at our leisure, looking for dupes/etc. Maybe keep a meta-post full of 'em, similar in principle to Tag cleanup--[light]

Has anyone notified TP and astro meta yet? If so, please do. We'll need full cooperation for this (I would post, but typing on a phone is annoying :/)

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Pretty good idea. It might run into trouble with questions that already have the full complement of tags, but I suppose that's not many. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Apr 25 '12 at 19:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Holding tags astronomy and, say, theoretical-research may kill two birds with one stone - one: for the initial retagging/reduplicating, and the other: to absorb communities from the abandoned sites (making it beneficial both for them and physics.SE). $\endgroup$ – Piotr Migdal Apr 25 '12 at 19:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @dmckee I guess we can deal with those on a per-case basis. That's what meta is for :) $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Apr 25 '12 at 19:12
3
$\begingroup$

How about, as a default, migrating over all the questions that are open: i.e. those that are neither closed nor deleted, from tp.SE to p.SE, and from astro.SE to p.SE.

But only do that, at the end of the 1-week grace period.

And use the 1-week grace period on those sites to close any questions that, for one reason or another, shouldn't be migrated.

We could always have a (whisper it) temporary tag for migrated questions, to enable post-migration clean-up and duplicate-spotting. Yes, I know meta-tags are taboo, but every rule needs its exceptions ... and thinking about it further, the tag in question would be , which already exists, and has just four questions that use it.

So, to clarify, I'm not proposing delaying anything. What I'm proposing is that, starting now, any questions that shouldn't be migrated on tp.SE should be closed. And, at the end of the grace period, an automated migration should take place of all questions are still open (i.e. neither closed nor deleted)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Shog9 explicitly discouraged pushing it till the end meta.stackexchange.com/questions/130342/… $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Apr 25 '12 at 19:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Manishearth I think you've misunderstood what I'm proposing. I'm proposing an automated migration. Manual migration takes quite a lot of time, as does flagging up good posts for migration - and those are the things that Shog9 says should be started now. I'm proposing a different path, but one that also starts without delay. $\endgroup$ – EnergyNumbers Apr 25 '12 at 20:10
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, gotcha :). I agree with you. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Apr 25 '12 at 20:20

You must log in to answer this question.

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