-5
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

Redundant tags I has been made more specific to overtly specific tags. Here are some which don't even seem to be about physics.

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir, Emilio Pisanty, Manishearth Aug 25 '13 at 8:35

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

2
$\begingroup$

This isn't very specific. Common technique in experimental physics.

Slightly metaphysics-y, but not that bad a tag. it's ambiguous though, I guess we could get rid of it. Not too certain about that

Sort of a meta tag in the sense that it doesn't denote a topic (however that doesn't seem to be the tpe of met tag that's disallowed, since most other sites have similar tags). But otherwise approximations are there in many different physics topics.

similar as above. Used in many places (circuit analysis, optics are two examples I can come up with)

Probably too specific as it has only 2 questions. I don't know how broad the topic/application is.

is on topic (I think), and a pretty interesting tag to have.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @Dimension10 Hmm, I don't think so myself :/ $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Aug 10 '13 at 6:35
1
$\begingroup$

Here I do not quite agree that all of the tags mentioned in this question should be burnicated (generally I think all the tags we have should denote meaningful physics terms):

  • is a meaningful method to investage the structure of materials in the field of material sciences, so it seems a good one.

  • seems a bit unspecific

  • seems ok for questions that ask about about
    particular approximations needed in different contexts

  • is a good meaningful technical tag for
    technical questions (it came from TP.SE), even though it is not
    heavily populated I still dont give up that the kind of questions
    that needs this kind of tags will increas again ;-)

  • looks slightly off topic to me ..

.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dimension10 it depends of course, for example if the theoretical fraction of questions would increase again, it could be useful to have things like clifford-algebras, fiber-bundles, etc too. And I still want f-theory ... ;-P ! $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Aug 10 '13 at 12:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dimension10 yeah, I somehow dont agree with this merge either, I'd prefer having string-theory, m-theory, and f-theory seperately, but that is just me ... ;-) $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Aug 10 '13 at 12:36

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