11
$\begingroup$

The 'nomenclature' tag is used 33 times, 'naming' is used 5. I consider these tags to be virtually synonymous and suggest we merge 'naming' into 'nomenclature', however in the interests of balance, here are some pros and cons:

Pros:

  • The 'naming' tag is virtually redundant as all but one question currently using the tag concern chemical or pharmaceutical systematic nomenclature.

Cons:

  • Not everyone is familiar with the word 'nomenclature'.

  • There are possible questions of molecular etymology that sit apart from systematic nomenclature schemes, which may defend the relevance of a seperate 'naming' tag. A hypothetical question would be something like 'why is theobromine called theobromine if it doesn't have a bromine atom in it?' or 'why is diethyl ether called 'sweet oil of vitriol' in my 17th century alchymical grimoire?'.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I think this is worth doing, but I would make it a synonym in case anyone uses it again in the future. $\endgroup$ – jonsca Sep 1 '13 at 4:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We have an underused history-of-chemistry which could be used to address your second Con point, if such a demand arises. $\endgroup$ – jonsca Sep 1 '13 at 4:37
  • $\begingroup$ Synonyming is the way to go here; if someone types "naming" it gets automatically converted (the tag suggestion box says "nomenclature (also naming)". Which means that if they didn't mean to use "naming" to mean "nomenclature", they'll find out. $\endgroup$ – ManishEarth Sep 1 '13 at 5:45
  • $\begingroup$ I've cleaned up existing cases of the 'naming' tag. $\endgroup$ – Richard Terrett Sep 1 '13 at 6:48
  • $\begingroup$ I am surprised that there is not yet this "name"/"names"/"naming" tag yet. It probably is not used by newcomers, because it is not auto-completed. Neither the "nomenclature" often is, because they don't know this technical term. $\endgroup$ – mykhal May 14 '17 at 21:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .