We seem to have a fair few Rocheworld style questions accumulating over the years. Is it worth having a tag for them? Would enough people even recognise the tag for it to be meaningful?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A search only reveals 8 questions that seem like they would merit the tag. $\endgroup$ – kingledion Jan 26 '18 at 1:57
  • $\begingroup$ I've asked a few questions about Rocheworlds and thought there could/should be a tag for it, but maybe its still too small a subject. So what if there was something like a Tidally Locked tag? Rocheworlds fall into that category by definition, but that tag would also fit the broader definition of tidally locked astral bodies of which I'm sure there are many more questions. Just an idea. $\endgroup$ – Len Mar 16 '18 at 19:27

Is that a popular book?
I read a lot, and I had never heard of Rocheworld, so I did a quick search and figured out it's a book about laser driven light sail propulsion to the double planet that orbits Barnard's Star.
Having never read it, even with the wikipedia entry to give me hints, I have no idea what actually makes up a Rocheworld question.

I suggest that instead of having a tag like , I think it would be a lot less confusing to have a tag like , or , or , or , because then it's not ambiguous as to what it means.

tl;dr: no.

  • $\begingroup$ worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/search?q=rocheworld ? $\endgroup$ – NofP Jan 25 '18 at 22:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @NofP I think that you might be better off using this search, which only gives you questions - there are 8 in total (at time of typing, 1 of which is closed) $\endgroup$ – Mithrandir24601 Jan 25 '18 at 22:23
  • $\begingroup$ @Mithrandir24601 probably some number in between. Anyway +1 for how to spell specific searches. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – NofP Jan 25 '18 at 23:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Mithrandir24601 Several of the other questions would justify the tag without using the word inside the question. I don't have a link handy but I remember seeing some. $\endgroup$ – Tim B Jan 26 '18 at 9:06
  • $\begingroup$ This is part of why I asked - to see how meaningful the tag would be. A rocheworld is a binary planet pair, usually tidally locked to each other, orbiting just outside the roche limit but with a shared atmosphere. It's a concept with a lot of interesting possibilities and non-intuitive physics and behaviour. $\endgroup$ – Tim B Jan 26 '18 at 9:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Mithrandir24601 For example this one: worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/4858/… and this one worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/102522/… $\endgroup$ – Tim B Jan 26 '18 at 9:16
  • $\begingroup$ More interestingly there may well be examples where both Q & A do not use the word "Rocheworld" and as a result we have no way of associating them with these other related questions unless someone notices and tags them. $\endgroup$ – Tim B Jan 26 '18 at 9:17
  • $\begingroup$ You show search more. While the first book went through three editions, this was part one of a series of five hard-sf novels published between 1984 and 1995. While questions about close binary planets may be, moderately proposed, it's probably only just on the cusp of amost needing its own tag. A lot more questions need to be asked first. $\endgroup$ – a4android Jan 29 '18 at 12:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @a4android I'm not actually sure if you meant your comment for me, so if I get this wrong sorry. Ringworld was published in 1970, and I'd guess that a good percentage of people who are into SF have read it, or at least have heard of it. But even if I hadn't, if someone walked up to me and asked "what do you think this book Ringworld is about?" I would guess "a world in the shape of a ring." I don't think that "Rocheworld" has the same universality. Everyone knows what a ring looks like. Not that many people know what a Roche limit is. I really think double-planet would be better. $\endgroup$ – AndyD273 Jan 29 '18 at 13:55
  • $\begingroup$ Good point. "Rocheworld" is obscure & double-planet is much better especially since that tag already exists. I wasn't advocating a Rocheworld tag (except if questions on the topics became common, but a double-planet tag would still be better). Also, Bob Forward's Rocheworld novels seem to have faded into obscurity. $\endgroup$ – a4android Jan 30 '18 at 3:48

What would this tag be about? Forward's light sail propulsion system? Flouwen? Rocheworld double planet shape? If it is not clear from the tag name, then it is a very bad tag name. I might agree that propulsion systems and planets with shared atmosphere might, possibly, deserve own tags if there are none already. But I'm sure that Rocheworld is not a name for tag.


What I've seen is a not uncommon pattern of several questions on a related topic (in this case "rocheworld") coming close together, where one or sometimes two people are producing these questions for a while.

Then it dies down, like a fad.

I'd be afraid that if we make tags for all these subject-of-the-moment type things we'd be knee deep in tags that are hardly used. We already have useful tags for this type of question - like gravity, planets. Maybe we should not seek to generate tags unless there's a consistent subject or category that crops up e.g. at least once a week, maybe once every two weeks.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Also, if it's a specific name, it can easily be searched for. Tags isn't the only way to find questions, though it's a very useful one. Let's use each tool for what it's good at. $\endgroup$ – user Jan 30 '18 at 19:32

tl dr: Darn Straight - Add It

What is the purpose of a tag? In my approximation it is metadata. What is metadata used for? It's used so people can find subjects for which they are looking. You can have five tags per question. If having an extra tag which says brings people from away from Stack Exchange here (through a Google search or what have you), helps others who are asking questions as such (so they don't create duplicates and therefore make more work for others), and makes general sense (can be related to the subject without too much consternation), then why not? IMHO, the only reason to not add it is if there's already something which could be used as a synonym. Just because some people don't know what it is doesn't mean the tag shouldn't be added. That's a very short sighted and snobbish attitude.

To me, as long as there is a good explanation in the Tag Wiki as far as what the meaning of the tag is, then add it. It will pay dividends going forward.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You might be surprised how many don't read the tag wiki excerpt, let alone the full tag wiki. Also, tags should ideally be discoverable. I'm not sure how discoverable a "rocheworld" tag would be, unless you already know the term at which point you might just search for the word... $\endgroup$ – user Jan 30 '18 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelKjörling - The only reason I stated about the tag wiki is so there's no confusion about what the tag is for (like it's supposed to be). The tag as metadata is discoverable from the real world (as opposed to what we consider this place called SE :o), which brings people here, with more knowledge (read: answers) or more questions (read: content). If there's a spot for a tag on a question and the tag makes sense, there's plenty of room at the inn (space on the SE servers) to house another tag, no matter how much it does or does not get used. $\endgroup$ – Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 Jan 30 '18 at 20:28

You must log in to answer this question.

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