19
$\begingroup$

Post here tag synonym proposals for voting.

For example: what tags should by synonyms of "quantum-mechanics"? See also this meta post.

This post can also be used to suggest minor changes to a tag, e.g. pluralization.

  1. Use the format → in your answer.

    (Copy-pasteable template: [tag:write-here-synonym]→[tag:write-here-master] .)

  2. Before creating a new answer, please go to here or to https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/write-here-master/synonyms (where the write-here-master part of the URL is appropriately replaced) and check that your tag synonym has not already been proposed.

  3. Moreover, it is recommended to only suggest a tag synonym if the tag is used at least twice. (Tags that are only used once will expire automatically by themselves after some time.)

$\endgroup$
1
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ There do appear to be some restrictions on voting for tag synonyms, though (I tried to vote for one - I forget which - and got a popup box warning that I couldn't) $\endgroup$
    – David Z
    Commented Dec 1, 2010 at 0:16

7 Answers 7

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

→

Every biology question should be about the physics part.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ having good tag wikis, and particularly good excerpts, would probably be much more helpful than a simple synonym. $\endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    Commented Feb 20, 2014 at 15:25
2
$\begingroup$

→

The new tag half-life introduced is really a subset, and radioactivity is sufficient for identification purposes and subsuming.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Also, relevant chat transcript, and thereabouts. $\endgroup$
    – 299792458
    Commented Jun 10, 2015 at 6:50
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think the argument holds. electromagnetic-radiation is a subset of electromagnetism; should we merge them? half-life adds perfectly valid descriptive information about the question, above and beyond radioactivity. (In addition, it's not really a subset - every exponential decay has a half life. Try doing radiation biophysics without this, for instance.) $\endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    Commented Jun 10, 2015 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty - Alright that's your opinion. And while the argument about half-life in bio is technically right, I don't think there has been enough of it on this site anyways for the argument to hold. For instance, this is your sample space, a total of three results! And with the bio aspect left out, I don't think a separate half-life tag is of any great use. Plus, there are only 175 questions tagged with radioactivity (as opposed to the bigger ones, like QM), and ... (contd.) $\endgroup$
    – 299792458
    Commented Jun 10, 2015 at 18:46
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty - (contd.) ... and 118 of these 175 also feature half-life in it. Thus, half-life takes a substantial amount of radioactivity load. With this tag added today, and assuming it survives, you are talking about potentially re-tagging 118 posts which already have the 'radioactivity' tag, with 'half-life'. It looks like a useless task to me to be honest, but that's my opinion, and I can't vote on my post. But the stats seem to be favoring my proposal. :) $\endgroup$
    – 299792458
    Commented Jun 10, 2015 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ That pretty much misses the point. The question is not "are all half-life questions about radioactivity?" but rather "must all radioactivity questions be about half-life?" (on which your stats are abundantly clear). Unless the answer to the latter is yes, the tag helps distinguish those that do from those that don't. I don't see the reason to get worked up about it, though. $\endgroup$
    – Emilio Pisanty
    Commented Jun 10, 2015 at 19:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @EmilioPisanty - No one's worked up here, but a justification (i.e. what I call a justification) was necessary. Alright, peace! $\endgroup$
    – 299792458
    Commented Jun 11, 2015 at 3:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't see why the question would be 'must all radioactivity Qs be about half-life' here. Half-life is (suggested to be) a subset of radioactivity, which means that Qs about half-life are about radioactivity though not every radioactivity Q will necessarily be about half-life. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle Kanos
    Commented Jun 11, 2015 at 19:55
  • $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos - Yes, and there appear to be only three bio-relevant half-life questions, so your point makes sense. :) $\endgroup$
    – 299792458
    Commented Jun 12, 2015 at 4:31
1
$\begingroup$

→ 24 vs. 54 questions tagged; no wikis for either.

$\endgroup$
-3
$\begingroup$

I've suggested subatomic as a synonym for particle-physics.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/tags/particle-physics/synonyms

$\endgroup$
0
-5
$\begingroup$

→

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I disagree with those tags being synonyms. When for example asking about light cone coordinates coordinat-systems is appropriate whereas reference-frame is not. Whereas when asking about inertial reference frames, the converse holds. I have to think it further to state why I disagree from a more clear rational state of view than just using examples ... $\endgroup$
    – Dilaton
    Commented Jul 11, 2013 at 21:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Dilaton So you're saying more that coordinate systems are a mathematical construct, which is then used by a reference frame for physical situations rather than purely a mathematical one? $\endgroup$
    – tpg2114
    Commented Jul 11, 2013 at 21:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ still thinking about it ... I would say coordinate systems are yes a mathematical construct to represent things, but the physics should not depend on this representation, whereas it makes a physical difference if a reference frame is accelerated or inertial, you can not just switch between them by coordinate transformations. Darn, it is too late for me to think clearly today :-/... $\endgroup$
    – Dilaton
    Commented Jul 11, 2013 at 21:59
-7
$\begingroup$

→

$\endgroup$
1
-8
$\begingroup$

→
→
→

It would be nice if all things related to propagating electromagnetic fields would be covered by . Additional tagging with and could then be used to distinguish between the classical and QFT description, with for the HEP questions.

The reasoning here is that is not sufficient to distinguish between a classical and QFT treatment either. would still be a strict and helpful subset of .

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ -3 EMR can be classical EM too. $\endgroup$
    – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir
    Commented Jun 28, 2013 at 10:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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