Skip to main content
replaced http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

I generally (at least now) like the idea of merging and into .


However, the use of is very vague and broad at the same time. It may deal with all sorts of different models and theories, at least judging from the scope of the questions, this is the use of this tag.

Unfortunately the tag wiki is incomplete at best and the scope of these questions is just mentioned as:

For questions seeking generalised answers deduced from or composed of theories regarding the chemical reactions involved.

We also have a without description and only 5 questions, while theo-chem has 55.

A lot of these questions also deal with models that would generally be considered or . Appropriate retagging would be in order, as I think that theo-chem defines the scope of the questions best (in comparison within the range , , ...).

We might then want to go ahead and create a tag like the proposed , but with a more meaningful name, like general-theories, chemical-models, ... (I cannot think of good ones right now). But yet again I am not sure if we actually need that.

If we clean up this tag, i.e. removing it from those questions that fit better in other categories, then I think merging would be very well applicable.


In general I think that conjunctional tagging is more appropriate in most cases:

I generally (at least now) like the idea of merging and into .


However, the use of is very vague and broad at the same time. It may deal with all sorts of different models and theories, at least judging from the scope of the questions, this is the use of this tag.

Unfortunately the tag wiki is incomplete at best and the scope of these questions is just mentioned as:

For questions seeking generalised answers deduced from or composed of theories regarding the chemical reactions involved.

We also have a without description and only 5 questions, while theo-chem has 55.

A lot of these questions also deal with models that would generally be considered or . Appropriate retagging would be in order, as I think that theo-chem defines the scope of the questions best (in comparison within the range , , ...).

We might then want to go ahead and create a tag like the proposed , but with a more meaningful name, like general-theories, chemical-models, ... (I cannot think of good ones right now). But yet again I am not sure if we actually need that.

If we clean up this tag, i.e. removing it from those questions that fit better in other categories, then I think merging would be very well applicable.


In general I think that conjunctional tagging is more appropriate in most cases:

I generally (at least now) like the idea of merging and into .


However, the use of is very vague and broad at the same time. It may deal with all sorts of different models and theories, at least judging from the scope of the questions, this is the use of this tag.

Unfortunately the tag wiki is incomplete at best and the scope of these questions is just mentioned as:

For questions seeking generalised answers deduced from or composed of theories regarding the chemical reactions involved.

We also have a without description and only 5 questions, while theo-chem has 55.

A lot of these questions also deal with models that would generally be considered or . Appropriate retagging would be in order, as I think that theo-chem defines the scope of the questions best (in comparison within the range , , ...).

We might then want to go ahead and create a tag like the proposed , but with a more meaningful name, like general-theories, chemical-models, ... (I cannot think of good ones right now). But yet again I am not sure if we actually need that.

If we clean up this tag, i.e. removing it from those questions that fit better in other categories, then I think merging would be very well applicable.


In general I think that conjunctional tagging is more appropriate in most cases:

Source Link

I generally (at least now) like the idea of merging and into .


However, the use of is very vague and broad at the same time. It may deal with all sorts of different models and theories, at least judging from the scope of the questions, this is the use of this tag.

Unfortunately the tag wiki is incomplete at best and the scope of these questions is just mentioned as:

For questions seeking generalised answers deduced from or composed of theories regarding the chemical reactions involved.

We also have a without description and only 5 questions, while theo-chem has 55.

A lot of these questions also deal with models that would generally be considered or . Appropriate retagging would be in order, as I think that theo-chem defines the scope of the questions best (in comparison within the range , , ...).

We might then want to go ahead and create a tag like the proposed , but with a more meaningful name, like general-theories, chemical-models, ... (I cannot think of good ones right now). But yet again I am not sure if we actually need that.

If we clean up this tag, i.e. removing it from those questions that fit better in other categories, then I think merging would be very well applicable.


In general I think that conjunctional tagging is more appropriate in most cases: