Since this related thread died out, I'd really like to add a tag synonym from 'quantum mechanics' -> 'quantum chemistry' since I think users are confused.

Should I just go do this? I mainly ask because I've only been active for a few weeks and don't want to ruffle feathers.

  • $\begingroup$ So quantum-chemistry would be the keeper, then? I have to admit that I did lose track of that other discussion. I've been wanting to do something with theoretical-chemistry for a while (as brought up in the other discussion), since it tends to get abused by new users. I wouldn't do it just yet, but let's keep this on the front burner for a bit. $\endgroup$
    – jonsca
    Sep 23 '14 at 18:02
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I think that's the way I'd go. This also creates a distinction from physics-related questions, which of course end up in Physics.SE instead of here. $\endgroup$ Sep 23 '14 at 18:04
  • $\begingroup$ After all.. we don't usually see quantum teleportation or entanglement questions here. $\endgroup$ Sep 23 '14 at 18:04
  • $\begingroup$ What do you think about theoretical-chemistry? Good, bad, ugly? $\endgroup$
    – jonsca
    Sep 23 '14 at 18:09
  • $\begingroup$ I'd like Martin to weigh in since he planned out the scheme in the other question, and I don't know if his vision has changed. $\endgroup$
    – jonsca
    Sep 23 '14 at 18:10
  • $\begingroup$ @jonsca I think theoretical-chemistry is ugly right now, but might have some purpose as the site grows. I think we should table that discussion and see if we can just simplify this issue for now. $\endgroup$ Sep 23 '14 at 18:15
  • $\begingroup$ @jonsca I also always wanted to do something about these tags. I am on a business trip right now so I keep it short for the moment. The use of theo-chem is still ugly and needs a lot work done. Since we have quite some members in the community working in the field I have no worries about dealing with this subject. Maybe a special chat would help. On the easily to accomplished side I would go for merging the quantum tags, seconding geoff's question. We should still look through those questions and retag where appropriate. $\endgroup$ Sep 24 '14 at 10:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Last time we did a major merge I ended up editing a lot of questions, unfortunately burying all the new ones. We should proceede with care this time. I think jonsca can do the merge without upsetting the balance and we all can work on retagging if necessary over a longer timespan. I am currently not aware of the tag wiki progress, but i would suggest cleaning and extending this along the way, so that everyone has a handle on things. Last but not least i'd like to thank you for bringing this toppic up again. $\endgroup$ Sep 24 '14 at 10:45

I went ahead and did the merge of the two tags. I have also set as a synonym for .

We can revisit the at a later time, since as we've examined in the comments, it's not going to be as straightforward.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! This seems like a good idea. $\endgroup$ Sep 24 '14 at 15:34

You must log in to answer this question.

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