-3
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

After Redundant tags I and Redundant tags II, Redundant tags III is about tags about specific objects, meaningless to tag a question with .

(this is the only maxwell equation tag we have. This is the closest redundant tags I could post put this on . )

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir, Emilio Pisanty, Manishearth Aug 28 '13 at 12:55

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.

  • $\begingroup$ Suggestion to several of your recent tag posts: Replace the meta tag burninate-request with the meta tag tag-synonyms. Burninate requests requires outside intervention from the SE team, and should only be used in a few exceptional cases. Usually we can handle this ourselves within Phys.SE via tag synonymizations and tag merges. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Aug 13 '13 at 13:59
  • $\begingroup$ @Qmechanic: Ok. I didn't retagg II though, as it is still more-of a burninate request . $\endgroup$ – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir Aug 13 '13 at 14:09
3
$\begingroup$

is a pretty big field in solid state physics. It has applications in the implementation of quantum computation.

probably isn't necessary and can be merged with one of the fluid tags

ditto

merge with ?

this isn't really a specific object as nebulae are quite a vast topic in astrophysics. If this tag were to be deleted, it would be because we aren't getting many questions about this (not always a good reason to delete a tag imo)

ditto. And in this case we are getting questions about it.

A rather vast topic in fluid dynamics.

We get enough questions about this. If there were more questions, that tag could be created too, IMO.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. But what does "ditto" stand for ? . $\endgroup$ – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir Aug 10 '13 at 6:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dimension10 "same as above" $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Aug 10 '13 at 6:25
  • $\begingroup$ The problem with aircraft is that it doesn't need a separate tag for that . Besides, it may convincve people that posting engineering questions here is a good idea, which it isn't. Same for graphene . It could well go into the solid state physics tags . And gauss-law could be merged into one of the other em tags . $\endgroup$ – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir Aug 10 '13 at 6:29
  • $\begingroup$ @Dimension10 It's sort of an engineering tag, yes, but by and large the set of questions under that tag are different enough to get their own tag imo. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Aug 10 '13 at 6:30
  • $\begingroup$ I generally agree with all the comments in this answer. The only thing I dont understand is why aircraft is a fluid dynamics tag? Applications of it I can imagine would rather be about engineering, so it is not a keyword often used by physicists. $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Aug 10 '13 at 15:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Dilaton Remember that all tags on the site are in the context of physics. You're both right, aircraft questions will usually be engineering, which is a valid cause for removal (because it attracts OT stuff). However, within the context of physics a question about aircraft is (almost always) fluid dynamics. Though it still is removable/mergeable then. tpg2114 usually lurks in that tag, I'll see what he thinks. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Aug 10 '13 at 18:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ My thoughts on aircraft: It's not limited to fluid-dynamics in theory, but also propulsion/combustion, control theory, material science, newtonian-mechanics, etc.. So I wouldn't say it's a useless/redundant tag because it's so much more than fluid-dynamics, even if current questions don't appear to indicate that. $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 Aug 11 '13 at 4:05
  • $\begingroup$ @tpg2114: If it were to apply to all that; it would be an engineering tag . $\endgroup$ – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir Aug 14 '13 at 11:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Dimension10 Not really, tpg is talking about the physics of it. There's engineering too, but his point is that aircraft in the context of physics is not a tiny topic. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Aug 14 '13 at 11:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Manishearth: He's talking about the fact that all those stuff apply to aircrafts, engineering , . $\endgroup$ – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir Aug 14 '13 at 11:43
  • $\begingroup$ I want a tag for bus, car, taxi, auto-rickshaw, horse-carriage, wagon, elephant-ride, camel-ride, donkey-ride, submarine, ship, school-bus, kidnapper, cruise-ship, feet, bicycle, unicycle, cycle, tricycle, quadrocycle, quintocycle, bike, scooter, boat, speed-boat, train (probably even separate tags for each of the names as it is called in different countries...) , . . . . . '; $\endgroup$ – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir Aug 14 '13 at 11:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Dimension10 Do they have a lot of physics behind them? Not really. Those tags don't work because there's a very small pool of questions you can ask about them. The physics of flight is very complex and can spawn many questions. And that's just the physics of flight. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Aug 14 '13 at 11:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dimension10 Combustion isn't engineering only and certainly applies to aircraft. The fluid dynamics is obvious that it's physics. Material science could be physics as well if posed correctly. Control theory is really the only one that I might have trouble coming up with a physics-only based question, but even there it might be possible. Something along the lines of "What causes flat spin and why is it unrecoverable?" The answer to that is entirely physics based and would have to include control theory, among other things. $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 Aug 14 '13 at 12:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dimension10 By what logic? What says that a tag that encompasses multiple sub-fields forces it to be about engineering? $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 Aug 14 '13 at 12:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dimension10 To show counter examples -- mathematical-physics and experimental-physics cover multiple sub-fields including propulsion/combustion, fluid dynamics, control theory, material science. The same sub-fields as aircraft. So are those also engineering? $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 Aug 14 '13 at 12:17

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