1
$\begingroup$

I noticed that we have both the and tags, both of which I feel should be absorbed by the tag.

I also noticed we have both the and tags. In this case, I feel the tag should be absorbed by the more popular tag.

Thoughts?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ofc, radioactivity produces radiation but not all radiation is from radioactive decay. "Radioactive" seems extremely niche though, for WB. Haven't looked at tagged Q's yet but I can't image there are many of them. (Edit: there are None.) $\endgroup$
    – BMF
    Commented Jul 8, 2023 at 16:55
  • $\begingroup$ @BMF my bad, the tag is question is actually the 'radioactivity' tag, which has a total of 39 questions, as opposed to the 150 questions under the 'radiation' tag $\endgroup$
    – M S
    Commented Jul 8, 2023 at 17:15

3 Answers 3

1
$\begingroup$

Less Is Best


I think Strong & Weak forces are fundamental forces along with E-M and Gravity. I've read that there is now a fifth force as well. I have the feeling that as understanding progresses, we'll have others too.


As such, I'd argue that a tag for Fundamental Forces be differentiated from tags for either Radiation or Radioactivity.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I think 'electromagnetism' and 'gravity' are popular and distinct enough to warrant having their own tags, rather than being put under the umbrella tag of 'fundamental forces'. The 'strong-force' and 'weak-force' tags are decidedly unpopular, each having less than 10 questions, and both would fit neatly under the umbrella of the nuclear tag. I think a migration for those two is warranted. $\endgroup$
    – M S
    Commented Jul 8, 2023 at 18:01
  • $\begingroup$ And I don't think there's much merit in having both the 'radiation' and 'radioactivity' tags. One refers to both electromagnetic and nuclear radiation, and the other refers specifically to nuclear radiation, but I don't think that's a particularly useful distinction. $\endgroup$
    – M S
    Commented Jul 8, 2023 at 18:02
  • $\begingroup$ @MS --- Well, I concur on your second comment. At least as commonly understood, they're synonymous. Yes, radiation is more general, but is also strongly linked with radioactivity. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Commented Jul 8, 2023 at 18:55
1
$\begingroup$

I agree with all your proposals

Looking at each and every tag, they all come from 2016 or earlier. They've been alive for 7 years. But even with 7 years of use, each of the tags got less than 50 questions each (and two less than 10!). It's a very strong sign they aren't attracting people's eyes and ears.

Because of that -and because there are either synonymous or more generic tags-, they can and should be merged together. They're not useful enough to help people find and categorize questions in a reasonable manner, all while cluttering the tag list.

So to keep it straight and short, I wholefully agree to merge , , and into the tags you suggest ( and respectively).

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I wish this had been asked as two questions.

  1. I disagree with combining tags and into . We loose too much granularity with that combination. There are many questions that involve the tag and have nothing to do with either of the force tags. I also agree with @Elemtilas' analysis. The nuclear forces are basic forces and should have their own tags.

  2. On the other hand, I have no objection at all making a synonym of . Do you not yet have sufficient rep to make synonym suggestions? At that point it gets voted on in the review queue.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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