# Scope of esters tag

## TL;DR

As a continuation to efforts of setting the functional tags right (see here for background and more info) we need to gather community consensus on what the scope of should be.

Since has now been created I set about writing a tag wiki for it. I have only included carboxylate esters in the scope of the tag but @Loong pointed out that there are other types of esters (orthoesters as well as many inorganic ones - phosphate, chromate to name a few) as well. Should these be included in the scope of the tag? The vast majority of esters questions are about carboxylate esters but I guess we could include other types as well.

• Let's make it a poll. Aug 13 '15 at 20:38
• @inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M is poll(ut)ing meta Aug 13 '15 at 21:04
• A few notes on the poll: 1) Please do edit to add more pros and cons as you think of more. It will make the decision easier. 2) Please use the answers' comment section for further discussion on the matter. Final results will be posted as a new answer. Aug 13 '15 at 21:09
• There is one thing I did not think about at all before: The "ordinary" ester, as a derivative of the carboxylic acid, is technically already covered by carbonyl-compounds... Aug 14 '15 at 5:44
• I'll give this another day or two but the result seems fairly clear. Maybe I'll set about editing the wiki at some point.
– bon
Aug 15 '15 at 10:12

Okay, let's look at the results after 47 hours and 52 minutes & 37 seconds and 937 milliseconds 1:

• Inclusion of all esters in : 5 upboats
• Inclusion of carboxylate esters only: 1 upboat 1

Thus, the winner is $\ldots$ drum roll $\ldots$ who are we kidding? Everyone knows which decision won. I never understood these announcements in movies.

1: This data is calculated using B3LYP $\ldots$ no seriously, stop laughing! It's measured using very accurate methods.
2: Assumingly from someone who likes to see me go ლ(ಠ_ಠლ).

• Technically, posting an image from piled higher and deeper is not allowed by their copyright. Aug 17 '15 at 5:30
• Hmm, @Mart what if I also include a link to the source? Aug 17 '15 at 5:32
• I am not sure about that, but all our posts are with a creative commons license and theirs are not. I don't know how they deal with that, since it is in one way a free advert for them. I only noticed, that if you want to user their images, you need to ask permission first. Aug 17 '15 at 5:56

Vote this answer up if you think we should also include other types of esters in the 's scope.

## Possible pros:

• We're being consistent and scientifically more accurate.

## Possible cons:

• This might lead to further confusions. For instance, how should we tag this question? It already has which, IMHO, sufficiently covers the indication of nitroglycerin. Excessive tags are sometimes a pain, and nitroglycerin is a nitrate ester. So, what should we do?
• This might add a risk of tag broadness. Tags are meant to be primary "interest marks" for people. If I no longer trust a tag to show what I'm interested in then the tag loses its purpose to me. 1

1: Note that there's an amply wide case of discussion here. Will the inclusion bite or not?

• I made it CW so that everyone could add benefits/disadvantages, but it seems people are not interested in it. :( Pats his back Aug 14 '15 at 15:30

Vote this answer up if you think we should only include carboxylate esters in the tag.

## Possible pros:

• Avoid confusion: The majority of the questions on the site are about carboxylate esters anyway.
• Avoid possible tag broadness: Every tag scope enlargement is followed by an inclusion of a set of specific questions. They might make the tag overly broad (which renders it unuseful) Now, will this inclusion sting or help?

## Possible cons:

• Nitrate esters and phosphoesters are esters after all. Not including them in the tag might look inconsistent.