7
$\begingroup$

While anwering a question or two, I stumbled over the tag, used on eight questions. Is this an aluminium/aluminum thing, or just wrong spelling anywhere?

Wrong or not, is there any good reason why I should not delete it and tag these questions with instead, already used on 48 questions?

We do have the tag on 29 questions too. Some of the questions are already tagged with . Do we really need both of these or may I just kill ?

$\endgroup$
12
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Mods can merge/rename tags if necessary. The intention behind -technique was to be a bit more specific than -chemistry, we may want to reevaluate that. $\endgroup$ – ManishEarth Mar 27 '14 at 7:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not saying that the destinction between -chemistry and -technique didn't make sense, thinking in the choice of wavelength, slit width, pulse length and other parameters in spectroscopy. In pratice however, it might be less work to merge the experimental- tags and use more specific tags like nmr for the particular details. $\endgroup$ – Klaus-Dieter Warzecha Mar 27 '14 at 7:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree and I was asking myself the same thing about bond and bonding. Differentiating between these two does not make any sense to me (and bonding does not even have a description here). $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Mar 31 '14 at 7:50
  • $\begingroup$ For the laboratory tag, I think it is just a misspelling. It should be corrected (at least). Maybe it should be merged with teaching-lab and this would be for questions about the teaching of chemistry in the laboratory. $\endgroup$ – LDC3 Apr 20 '14 at 19:10
  • $\begingroup$ @LDC3 It definitely is, and I still think it should be merged, together with experimental-technique, into experimental-chemistry. $\endgroup$ – Klaus-Dieter Warzecha Apr 23 '14 at 6:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "labratory" has been purged from the rolls, and laboratory is now a synonym of experimental-chemistry. I will hold off on the merge of experimental-technique into experimental-chemistry until there is further consensus. $\endgroup$ – jonsca Apr 24 '14 at 21:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have made the question visible on the bulletin board so we can get some more opinions. $\endgroup$ – jonsca Apr 24 '14 at 21:17
  • $\begingroup$ @jonsca I'm to read that the labrat (orat) ory is gone :D $\endgroup$ – Klaus-Dieter Warzecha Apr 24 '14 at 21:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The labrats can go down with their own sinking ship! Yes, we've now upped our appeal to the masses. $\endgroup$ – jonsca Apr 24 '14 at 21:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with Klaus, that the experimental tags should be merged and more specific tags should be used to determine the scope of the question. We should then also append it to the description of experimental-chemistry that more specific tags may be used to narrow the field. $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Apr 28 '14 at 7:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't think we need experimental-technique $\endgroup$ – LDC3 Apr 29 '14 at 1:17
  • $\begingroup$ @jonsca There basically was no voice against this, and I think there are no more voices coming in. I guess it is quite valid to do it $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Jul 29 '14 at 8:57
4
$\begingroup$

has been subsumed into . If someone has time, please go through and see if any of these questions need additional tags for a particular apparatus (as per Martin's comment above):

I agree with Klaus, that the experimental tags should be merged and more specific tags should be used to determine the scope of the question. We should then also append it to the description of experimental-chemistry that more specific tags may be used to narrow the field.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I have extended the tag wiki a little. $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Jul 29 '14 at 9:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin Thanks, they get goofed up a little in the merge $\endgroup$ – jonsca Jul 29 '14 at 9:19
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, I went through the questions and retagged/ edited when appropriate. $\endgroup$ – Martin - マーチン Jul 30 '14 at 5:36
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin Thanks so much! $\endgroup$ – jonsca Jul 30 '14 at 6:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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