I just realised that the questions on the site are too mixed up together. On the main page, a question about Newtonian Mechanics is often side-by-side with a question on the standard model/general relativity/string theory etc. I think this is quite messy so a classification would be quite good. Not by tags, but by categories. According to me, the following would be a good classification (but by no means am I suggesting to be final):

  • Non-Relativistic Classical Mechanics
    • Newtonian Mechanics
    • Thermodynamics
    • Maybe statistical mechanics?
    • Optics
    • Wave mechanics and oscillators
    • Hamiltonian Mechanics
    • Lagrangian Mechanics
    • Newtonian Gravitation
    • Maxwellian Electromagnetism
  • Relativity
    • Special Relativity
    • General Relativity
    • Alternatives to General Relativity (Einstein-Cartan theory, etc.)
  • Quantum Mechanics
    • Old Quantum Theory
    • Heisenberg Matrix mechanics
    • Schrodinger Wave mechanics
    • Feynman Path Integral mechanics
    • Scattering
  • Quantum Field Theory

    • Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (Klein-Gordon Equation, Weyl Equation, Dirac Equation, etc.)
    • Quantum Chromodynamics
    • Electroweak theory
    • Quantum Electrodynamics
    • Higgs theory
    • Standard model
  • Quantum Gravity and Unification theories

    • String theory
    • Loop Quantum Gravity
    • Maybe Kaluza-Klein?
    • etc. (GUTs, preon models, and other attempts to Quantum Gravity)
| |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is similar. I don't really like this request -- separating stuff on the main page may not give a good overview of the site. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Jun 7 '13 at 5:27
  • $\begingroup$ That will create something like Yahoo answers . Different categories can be seen by users........ But some categories will be seriously ignored. $\endgroup$ – ABC Jun 7 '13 at 7:28
  • $\begingroup$ It's neither interesting nor clever. This website is not a library, so it doesn't need a Dewey classification. The search engine is good enough to know if a similar question than yours already exists. Tags can be added, too, such that the tagging is sufficiently precise I believe. I voted down. Thanks for having spend time explaining your idea. $\endgroup$ – FraSchelle Jun 7 '13 at 18:02

Not gonna happen.

The site is built to use tags for categorization rather than a hierarchy, and this is a good thing because tagging is more flexible than hierarchies which always suffer from problems relating to

  • difficult to categorize questions
  • questions that span disciplines

There are several things that you can do to control the presentation.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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