27

Same Answer, Different Tag My answer for this tag is basically the same as for the other tag: sex is simply part life and part of culture (even more so than torture). Every life form that reproduces sexually is oriented towards engaging in the activity with the end goal of making more of its kind. Rational beings also infuse sex with large amounts of ...


25

Obviously people are voting to get rid of it, and obviously people are inappropriately voting down other opinions just because they disagree, but I'll take the hit: Keep it. I use it. There is a distinction. hard-science means (to me as a PhD that has done it) known science, it is a request about actual engineering, actual materials, actual known math or ...


19

This feels pretty synonymous with clothing. I'd vote for merging the tag or just deleting it altogether.


17

It is true that we've gotten a lot of torture & violence queries of late that seem to run story based, but this is no reason to eliminate the tag. If anything, we're just demonstrating that the forum's system works by closing off topic queries. So, what about torture itself? Well, it has long been a part of jurisprudence. For long, it was considered both ...


16

I think, to prevent hard-science going the way of science-based, we're going to have to be strict about things. Really, quite harshly strict about it - like this: If a question is not a hard-science question but tagged as one, a tag edit is needed. Any and all attempts to re-add the tag should be rolled back. If an answer to a hard-science question doesn't ...


14

As I wrote in a comment to this meta question, I was the one who added the post notice to the answers, roughly six hours ago. First, we don’t use scripts. That’s extremely unfair, in my opinion, because it’s not easy for a script to figure out if a post meets certain criteria. There are exceptions, in the case of spam answers, but it’s much harder to ...


13

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."


13

Whenever I see a "non-" tag I cringe a little, because tags are meant to indicate areas of expertise. Somebody might be an expert in planets or creature-design or magic or even in conducting reality-checks (though I admit that's a little farther out), but what does it mean to be an expert in non-reality-check? I think of tags more as categorization, not ...


13

If we want to be scientifically accurate and still useful, I would suggest to use toxin and make other two synonyms of it. If we want to be useful and not so stiff about definition (and that's what I think we should be), then let's just make poison definition match Wikipedia's broad one, and mark venom as synonym. There is no practical need to have them ...


13

Agreed on the removal Not much to say there, 3rd party material (so only fan-based worlds), which is not that famous on top, so it can't be put into a well-implanted culture. Not much can live by this tag, sooo... Into which tag to merge? I'm doing my naïve kid, but if it's a planet, why not simply merge it into the tag planets? Just by looking at the planet'...


12

So my view on the subject. Who is/are the arbiter(s) of whether or not an answer meets the requirements of the hard-science tag? The community. Instead of taking the step of deletion, I think we should first have a stamped-out comment that people can post, something like: "Hard-Science tags require answers that _______. This answer does not appear to ...


12

Agreed -- tags that are counting nouns should generally be plural. I just renamed it.


12

So to baseline. At its heart the Stack Network is about asking specific questions and getting specific answers. Admission: World Building is a weird beast. We are perhaps one of the sites that least adheres to this purpose. That said we continue to exist on the network and should strive to meet the intent of said network even as we have to adjust to ...


11

The reality-check tag says: Unlike the science-based tag, a reality-check question does not always require a scientific explanation. Most of the time, it is used to figure out if a concept make sense or not. Answers to the question should determine whether or not certain elements of the question are appropriate or realistic. So in other words if a ...


11

I disagree with creating a tag for this purpose. Tags should be used to categorize content. Ideally, saying "I am an expert in tag-name" should pass the laugh test. We have a few meta tags (science-based, hard-science, reality-check, and perhaps a few others) which pass this test only because they aren't supposed to be used in isolation; a question can't be ...


11

I think the tag as is does not prove of much use. The help center states, that: As a general rule, you should avoid creating new tags if possible, and new users are not allowed to create new tags. Even if you have sufficient reputation, you should only create new tags when you feel you can make a strong case that your question covers a new topic that ...


11

The tag in question is used by a single question, posted nearly three years ago. That question is voted +6/-9 for a net -3. The tag appears to try to describe something that is rather strongly discouraged by the only answer on the only question bearing that tag. That answer is voted +15/-0 for a net +15. Not only that; that answer is also written by a ...


11

The tag appears to be an invitation to close the question as opinion based or too broad, and was apparently created in protest at exactly that happening. As I said on the review, I see no purpose to it. Many of our most popular questions have been closed for these two reasons, adding a tag doesn't make the question any more valid. Tag has been used 5 times ...


10

As they would say on Stack Overflow: BURNINATE IT! The tag is definitely, as 2012rcampion states, an intersection of creature-design and reality-check. Furthermore, every question tagged with it already starts with "Anatomically correct"; to me, it almost feels like the tag is used solely to categorize questions starting with that title, which is totally ...


10

I think yellowstone would be way too specific. volcanoes covers it pretty well. But if it's really needed to get something to represent the sheer size of the problem, then, we might consider super-volcanoes. In history, there have been others than the Yellowstone. And in alternate worlds, there might be other ones. All those could gather under the super-...


10

I feel like logical-consistency is a duplicate of reality-check. The latter is designed to do what your tag does: ask if an idea is consistent within the laws of physics of the universe in question. You can use reality-check on a question whose premise involves the force of gravity falling off as $e^{-|r|}$, rather than $r^{-2}$, whereas it would be harder ...


10

I've been pedantic about the use of certain tags in the past. For instance, I've suggested that the solar-system tag should only be used for questions involving the actual Solar System, rather than various other planetary systems (which would hopefully get a planetary-systems tag).[1] But there's a problem with that. Most people won't know how to properly ...


10

I've removed the tag. I've also closed the question, which is asking about 4chan, not about Worldbuilding (our site). Meta is for questions about our site or about the SE software, not about where else on the Internet to ask worldbuilding questions. (It would be possible to ask a worldbuilding-resources question on main that involves other sites, but that'...


10

I'll post the two basic yes/no answers for folks to vote on. Well, you deleted those answers (with "no" at +5/-0 and "yes" at +0/-4), so here's my take on it. Used for questions seeking plausible descriptions of factual scientific failures. Here already, the tag seems awfully similar to perhaps a combination of reality-check and science-based (which ...


10

Proposal: I propose simply burning the alternate-worldstag, applying appropriate replacement tags as necessary to the connected questions. I don't believe it brings enough context to a question to make it easier to answer.


9

I partially disagree and partially agree that they imply each other, fortunately it's easy to demonstrate in this case. A reality-check asks "is this possible/feasible/plausible". A hard-science asks "answer this using hard science". Now if we ask a question: I have a rocket weighing 10 tonnes, with 5 tonnes of that being propellent and efficiency ...


9

This one is pretty straight forward, if it can be answered with hard science, maybe something like the thermo-dynamic implications of tossing a fireball, then yes answer with hard science. This example would require you explain conservation of energy etc but it can be done. On the other hand if you are talking about a situation where physics just can't ...


9

I think hard-science should need to give references for every claim, but it should not need to require links to scientific articles (which, unless open access, the vast majority of readers won't have access to anyway), although linking to accessible scientific articles is definitely encouraged. Also the hard-science tag implies more rigorous argumentation. ...


9

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 ...


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