3
$\begingroup$

Having gained 1500 reputation, I didn't lose any time and created a tag wiki for classical-mechanics.

I quickly found out that creating something useful isn't easy at all. Actually, I am not really sure what kind of information to include (there are some hints but I didn't really find them helpful). So I'd like this question become a place for a discussion of general format of the tag wikis.

One suggestion per answer, please. (Also I'd like to make this community wiki).

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

Based on what we do on Stack Overflow (where the individual tag wikis vary considerable):

First and foremost: a description of what the tag means and what kinds of questions should be tagged that way (and what questions should not if there is confusion with a closely related tag).

After that it gets trickier, but consider

  • links to good introductory resources
  • links to particularly good questions currently on the site
  • acknowledgment of any particularly controversial aspects of the subject (i.e. the quantum mechanics tag wiki should say something about the epistemological questions surrounding the subject and the existence of multiple interpretations)
  • A (very!) brief history possibly listing the founding problems and or scientists

Some things that might be particular to physics

  • Some notes about notation or conventions (i.e. particle physics generally uses "natural" units and relativists typically employ the sum convention, etc)
  • Currently outstanding problems
  • This physics is the underling principle that makes <spiffy everyday technology> work
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What's the point of putting anything else besides the usage of the tag (that is, what kinds of questions should be tagged with it) in a tag-wiki? If I want to have a broad overview of a subject, I will not read a tag-wiki, I'll go to Wikipedia. $\endgroup$ – becko Apr 17 '13 at 16:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I also agree to including links to good questions on the site, but I think that anything else is just clutter. $\endgroup$ – becko Apr 17 '13 at 16:41

You must log in to answer this question.

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