1
$\begingroup$

Unlike always, I'd be direct: Should we merge and the newly renamed because Lewis structures are clearly structural formulas and the Wikipedia page for "structural formulas" says I'm right in saying that and no matter how much high schools love Lewis structures and how many questions we get from them and how much unpopular Newman or Fischer projections or others are at least in elementary courses of organic chemistry they're still a clear subset of and keeping the tag would make no sense because someone who wants to tag their question as could tag it as legitimately and if we merge them they could get to tag their question as even ignoring the fact that Lewis structures are structural formulas by simply typing "Lewis" in the tag box?

(i.e. Should we merge into ?)

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ I believe I'll get a "please be indirect next time" just about$\,\ldots\,$now. $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Oct 19, 2015 at 13:17
  • $\begingroup$ You call that being direct? Please, M.A., be concise and direct next time D= $\endgroup$
    – Jan
    Commented Oct 19, 2015 at 13:19
  • $\begingroup$ @Jan don't blow my joke! ಠ_ಠ $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Oct 19, 2015 at 13:20
  • $\begingroup$ tl;dr... well, I read the title. I don't think we should merge. $\endgroup$
    – Martin - マーチン Mod
    Commented Oct 19, 2015 at 13:21
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, I could leave it be @Martin, but the problem is, someone with a question about "lewis-structures" can legitimately tag it as "structural-formula". We'd end up in some kinda a mess. $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Oct 19, 2015 at 13:22
  • $\begingroup$ Apparantly one is supposed to upvote this if one wants to discuss even if one disagrees with the idea … whatever. $\endgroup$
    – Jan
    Commented Oct 19, 2015 at 20:16

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

Well, I’ll be rather frank. I disagree with merging into the new . The reasons being as follows:

If Stack Exchange decides to implement a tag tree rather than a tag list one day™ (didn’t someone want to make a meta.SE proposal?) then yes, have as a sub-tag of but let’s not put them together just like that.

(On that note, I would not oppose for Haworth, Newman, Fischer or sawhorse projections for similar reasons as highlighted above.)

I know that this answer is not really well written and all of the reasons more or less boil down to one. But I really don’t think it hurts to keep them separate and it might hurt if we want to separate them in two years.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Frank. I love your other suggestion: Adding a "stereochemical projection". $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Oct 19, 2015 at 20:35
  • $\begingroup$ @inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M Now how on Earth did I get frank as a name =O $\endgroup$
    – Jan
    Commented Oct 19, 2015 at 20:38
  • $\begingroup$ So the situation boils down to this: Every question tagged with "Lewis structure" can have "structural formula" as its other tag because LS are SF's as well, so we were introducing a redundant tag. However, removing it wouldn't have worked, since we have questions regarding Fischer projections and stuff. Now, with the introduction of the other tag, we would be able to deal with this problem. Let's get the German mod to agree and we're good to go. $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Oct 19, 2015 at 20:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ BTW, according to IUPAC recommendations 2008: “Although that convention is useful for teaching introductory chemistry, the use of Lewis structures outside of educational situations is strongly discouraged.” $\endgroup$
    – user7951
    Commented Oct 19, 2015 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ See discussion here @inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M. Broad and subset tags are not a bad thing ;) $\endgroup$
    – Jan
    Commented Oct 19, 2015 at 21:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Jan they are, because they generate unnecessary work. $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Oct 19, 2015 at 21:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M I am not the one that needs to be convinced here. The community needs to be convinced. And if I say, we wait and see for at least a week, I mean waiting for more than seven days. I do not like rushing things that may come around and bite me in the behind. Ideally the consensus finding process takes about a month, so even a week feels very rushed. Just be patient, we will work it out. $\endgroup$
    – Martin - マーチン Mod
    Commented Oct 20, 2015 at 4:19

You must log in to answer this question.

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