13
$\begingroup$

If I tag something then while typing it will not be suggested. However, if we instead had a tag then while typing the word "gravity", both tags would be suggested.

Since this would only involve adding a few letters to the tag (for which there are only 4 questions to consider), is there any reason not to do this?

$\endgroup$
13
$\begingroup$

We should always avoid abbreviations of important words in tags.

You've just run into one major reason why: it makes it harder to find the tag.

So yes, we really should change this tag to spell out "gravity."

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ +1 for idea of no abbreviations of important words in tags, -1 for changing the tag instead of just renaming it to gravity, +1 for reasoning behind why no abbreviations from tags. My upand down votes tend to cancel each other out. $\endgroup$
    – Twelfth
    Nov 21 '14 at 23:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Twelfth We aren't talking about replacing the tag here. That's what this page is for. $\endgroup$
    – BESW
    Nov 21 '14 at 23:48
  • $\begingroup$ (yep, this is why it adds up to a +1 and me agreeing with you) $\endgroup$
    – Twelfth
    Nov 22 '14 at 0:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, abbreviations should be avoided. In this case, "zero G" is a fairly well known term to folks in the know, but we cater to a wider audience. Tag names can be up to 24 characters long (actually, that page states "shorter than 25 characters") and we should use that length to try to find tag names that are descriptive and easy to find. $\endgroup$
    – user
    Nov 22 '14 at 13:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ideally, we want newcomers to the site to stumble across the correct tag(s) for a question by accident rather than having to search for them in any way. A newcomer's question might still require retagging (in part because some appropriate tags may be non-obvious to someone not knowledgable about the subject, which is likely why they would be asking here in the first place), but the easier we make it on them to find the (or at least some) correct tags, the better. $\endgroup$
    – user
    Nov 22 '14 at 13:05
  • $\begingroup$ While I'm not against this renaming, I anyway want to tell you that "zero-g" is not the abbreviation of "zero-gravity", but g is an unit of gravitational acceleration (on earth's surface we have 1g, by definition). In weightlessness, the gravitational acceleration is, of course, 0g. $\endgroup$
    – celtschk
    Mar 7 '15 at 9:52
3
$\begingroup$

I have renamed the tag to .

Note that this change may take some time to fully propagate throughout the site. It however looks to me like the process is complete.

$\endgroup$
-3
$\begingroup$

In conjunction with the other thread on the topic here Do we need a micro-gravity tag separate from Zero-G?

...I think Zero-G should either be a synonym of Gravity or completely removed in favor of just using the gravity tag as it's covered by the more generic gravity tag. Makes this a bit moot.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't think it's obvious that zero-g should be absorbed into gravity. I'd recommend you add an answer to the question you linked to, so we can see if the community agrees. $\endgroup$
    – trichoplax
    Nov 21 '14 at 23:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Right, forgot the meta vote use for these purposes. Answer is in $\endgroup$
    – Twelfth
    Nov 21 '14 at 23:44
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ My downvote is not a comment on merging into gravity (I think that will be the correct thing to do, but I don't know if we should do it now), but rather because this answer conflates that issue with the naming one. Whether it's a tag or a synonym, the zero-something thing needs a name, which is what this question is about. $\endgroup$ Nov 23 '14 at 1:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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