9
$\begingroup$

As suggested by Natheniel in Redundant tags I, I'll make a single question and let people vote on the answers (containing redundant tags to burninate.).

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Couldn't this voting method lead to that useful niche tags for a minority get burninated by an ignorant majority? $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Aug 16 '13 at 11:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ July 23, 2017. Users are asking: With all the upvotes why are these tags not burninated already? 1. Well, for starters, Phys.SE mods cannot burninate tags. Only the SE team can do that. 2. Many of the burninate candidate tags are low volume tags, so it is difficult to build a case that burnination of them is really necessary. See also Shog9's answer here. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jul 23 '17 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ @Qmechanic "Low-volume" does not mean "not harmful", particularly for the current two top-scorers. And also, if there is not going to be any action even with strong support, what's the point of this thread, then? $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jul 24 '17 at 13:50
  • $\begingroup$ It has come to my attention that burnination is weaker than blacklisting by a 2014(?) SE definition. Burnination only delete current tags but blacklisting also prevent the tag from reappearing in the future. It seems that much of the past 2013(?) Phys meta discussion used the cool-sounding burnination word where people really meant blacklisting. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jul 24 '17 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ Is any of below answers just for burnination but not for blacklisting? If there are no protests, I suggest to edit this thread to reflect blacklisting rather than burnination. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jul 24 '17 at 14:48
  • $\begingroup$ Alternatively, we could create a separate meta thread for blacklisting. But since it seems that all actual wishes for burnination are effectively also wishes for blacklisting, that seems a bit redundant. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jul 24 '17 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ Discussed in hbar phys chat session July, 25th, 2017. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jul 25 '17 at 18:24
15
$\begingroup$

The tag seems redundant and confusing, since questions asking for career advice are off-topic and I see little other uses for it. It also (weakly) suggests career advice questions are on-topic here, which may have led to this question being asked recently.

Should we get rid of it?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I guess we have this because they were on-topic on TP.SE ... $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Aug 14 '13 at 18:21
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Although it is currently off-topic, we have several highly upvoted physics-careers posts, e.g., What is an effective way to search for post-doc positions in physics?. The tag is convenient to find such physics-careers posts. It seems a bit like shooting the messenger, if we allow the old physics-careers posts, but kill the physics-careers tag. To be consistent one should in principle then also delete (as opposed to lock/close) the posts themselves, which (judging from current popularity) is not going to happen. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Aug 16 '13 at 11:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Qmechanic Granted. An important reason I mentioned this tag was because I found only 3 questions tagged with it, all from March 2011. I have uploaded an image here. So I didn't think many questions (and only one highly upvoted one) would become hard to find if the tag disappeared. But it turns out there are more than I could find. How is it that other people seem to find more questions with this tag? $\endgroup$ – Wouter Aug 16 '13 at 12:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Wouter: Because you accidentally have clicked the frequent tab. If you press another tab e.g. newest tab, you find more. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Sep 24 '13 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Qmechanic Of course, that explains it! Thank you :-) $\endgroup$ – Wouter Sep 24 '13 at 17:36
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I strongly agree with this one. These questions might have been on-topic at some point five years ago but they're not really within our purview anymore and there's Academia to take up the slack. The existing open questions should be closed as no longer on topic, then the whole set should be put under historical lock and the tag should then be blacklisted. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Jul 23 '17 at 17:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ August 4, 2017: physics-careers tag now officially blacklisted. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Aug 7 '17 at 8:46
6
$\begingroup$

PLEASE BURNINATE

This tag does not describe a physics subfield, method, concept, nor a keyword that is useful to and applied by physicists, but denotes just an everyday object.

Questions asking about the physics of a fan should be tagged with the proper real physics tags such as , , , or whatever applies in the respective case instead.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is for some reason quite popular to ask about fans. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Aug 16 '13 at 21:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Qmechanic sure, but is it not sufficient to tag these questions with the corresponding physics tags + the everyday-life tag if appropriate? I mean, if I want to ask a question about how technical object X works, I would rather use the appropriate physics tag and not create a non-physics X tag, because the question should focus on the physics anyway to not be off topic I thought (?). $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Aug 16 '13 at 21:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Dilaton fan is a physical object that is subject to the laws of physics: Do you want to disallow asking such questions in the future and chasing the corresponding sizeable minority of people completely away from the site by burnicating such tags? $\endgroup$ – Larry Harson Aug 17 '13 at 14:01
  • $\begingroup$ @dimension10 ignoring everything again such as? $\endgroup$ – Larry Harson Aug 19 '13 at 21:45
  • $\begingroup$ @dimension10 if you could be more specific, I might be able to understand what you're going on about. $\endgroup$ – Larry Harson Aug 20 '13 at 12:30
-1
$\begingroup$

PLEASE BURNINATE

This tag does not describe a physics subfield, method, concept, nor a keyword that is useful to and applied by physicists, but denotes just a means of travel.

Questions asking about the physics of airplanes and aircrafts should be tagged with real physics tags such as , , , or whatever applies in the respective case instead.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ummm,,,... There's no airplane. (I've suggested this to merge on the Tag synonyms for voting post.) $\endgroup$ – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir Aug 14 '13 at 13:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maintaining tags that denote things unrelated to physics, such as man made things or everyday terms make the site look very unprofessional and Quora like. $\endgroup$ – Dilaton Aug 14 '13 at 20:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This has tagged 60 questions, and has two followers: I'd call that pretty useful. $\endgroup$ – Larry Harson Aug 16 '13 at 11:54
  • $\begingroup$ @DImension10AbhimanyuPS it's probably best if you don't add in the red meta tags, because it gives the misleading impression that something is or isn't going to be done about the tag suggestion. E.g. in this case, there is nothing to indicate that this tag change is planned. Exception: if the tag is already gone from the site, adding status-completed is fine because that doesn't misrepresent anything. $\endgroup$ – David Z Sep 28 '13 at 6:39
  • $\begingroup$ I guess that's not quite so bad, but I still wouldn't do it because using the tag (even just inline in an answer) gives the impression that the decision has come from an official source. That never happens with these tag burnination requests, unless and until the tag is actually burninated. So I would suggest just letting the vote totals be the indicators of how the community views the suggestions. $\endgroup$ – David Z Sep 28 '13 at 6:48

You must log in to answer this question.

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