14

There's been an awful lot said here already, so I'm gonna cut to the chase: popular-science is clearly a meta tag, in the same way that homework is a meta tag - it can't stand alone when describing a question. That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or should be removed though. [popular-science], like [homework] has value in describing the sorts of answers ...


14

The physics-careers 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?


10

Yes we should get rid of the theory tag.


7

I think rest-mass should be a synonym to (or merged with) mass.


7

There is indeed some room for debate on whether all questions on this site must absolutely be about physics, or whether some non-physics astronomy questions are a good fit here. But this debate is irrelevant: questions on this site do not have to specify that they're about physics. The tag conveys no information. Further, it leaves the option for new users ...


7

To offer something authoritative: pursuant to our discussion in chat and the strongly supported suggestion for its removal, the mods are currently working on getting this tag blacklisted. I'll update here when it is done (or if the process fails for some reason).


6

Let's be careful with getting rid of tags: We should abolish a tag if it literally serves no purpose, or is actively harmful. As for your specific points: There's no tag wiki or tag excerpt, making it confusing what it was even intended to be used for in the first place. This isn't an argument to get rid of any tag, this is an argument to write a tag ...


5

I do not think the engineering should remain. It does not add information to the questions that are very important for answering/categorizing it. Additionally, the existing questions that are on-topic don't need the tag while the ones that would rely on the tag are off-topic based on our discussions about engineering.


5

This tag is gone. Please care for the widows and orphans


5

Yes please. It's a meta tag, and a very vague one at that. Once this gets consensus we'll see about getting it burninated.


5

The tag doesn't add any extra information and is an unnecessary meta-tag. Burn it at the stake!


5

PLEASE BURNINATE fan 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 fluid-dynamics, classical-mechanics, aerodynamics, or whatever applies in ...


4

Sure. Done. In the future just raise such non-controversial merge requests1 in chat (as opposed to meta), and a moderator will take action. Note that synonyms are reversible while merges are irreversible (=hard to unshuffle). This is why we often hesitate to perform merges. -- 1 I changed OP's original wording burninate request into merge request, ...


4

physics is now an intrinsic tag.


3

Discrete means as opposed to continuous. For, instance, people may ask questions about discrete electric charges, discrete spacetime, discrete energies, etc. If discretization is vital/essential to the question then tag it with the discrete tag. Currently there is 37 questions tagged with the discrete tag. A related tag (in case of quantum theory) is ...


3

This is me listing the reasons I'm pro popsci tag. First, if I may address its similarity to home-experiment and everyday-life. It's true, a good amount of what's listed in popsci is also in these tags. However, this tag is certainly useful for questions like: What generates such a huge amount of gravitational attraction in a black hole? where it is clearly ...


2

Done. The tag has been And is now in the tag blacklist.


2

x-ray-crystallography This isn't very specific. Common technique in experimental physics. laws-of-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 approximations 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 ...


1

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): x-ray-cristallography is a meaningful method to investage the structure of materials in the field of material sciences, so it seems a good one. laws-of-physics seems a bit unspecific ...


1

When I look at the questions currently tagged as popular science, I think it is highly reasonable to apply this tag to questions like(how-can-i-explain-or-demonstrate-the-lorentz-force-to-a-12-year-old). I also notice that there have been instances of what can be called misuse of the tag(in my personal opinion), and questions like Why does a glass breaks ...


1

After seeing a large amount of debate on this topic, I've decided to post another answer. Whereas my previous post was decidedly pro-popsci, I hope to present this post in a more neutral tone. It is quite clear that there are two almost evenly populated and completely contrasting sides on this issue. Seeing as mutual collaboration is not possible, in ...


1

As Manishearth said, popular-science is together with research-level and homework one of the three level tags needed to realize the by Jess Riedel suggested proposal to give people a method to filter not only the topics they are interested in, but to in addition choose the appropriate level too. The current audience of Physics SE has such a wide spread range ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible