6
$\begingroup$

I tried to edit this question, though I didn't, but that's not the point here. And, just as Pythagoras sensed that a formula is needed for the base of geometry of right-angled triangle, I sensed that there is a need for a tag here.

I looked for something like it but didn't find any results; the organic-chemistry is way too broad for it, synthesis tag and polymers tag are kind of 'out of the league' and nanotechnology tag could be better for describing what I'm about to suggest.

There is this tag: "Fullerenes", which can be turned into something like "Carbon-allotropes" or something more useful. Yes, I'm looking for a tag that contains the allotropes for C, other than diamond or graphite, that were first synthesized in a lab and were 'artificial', like fullerenes, graphene and nano-tubes.(However, we know that fullerenes do exist in the space, naturally.)

About the number of questions, doing a search with the "Graphene" keyword leads to more than 40 related questions, so that wouldn't be a problem. Sooo,

  • Is there a specific reason that this especial tag doesn't exist?
  • If we don't want or need to make it, why?
  • If you think there should be such a tag, what name would you have chosen for it? Because I didn't reach any sensible names.
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I just could have added the tag manually, (I don't know, could I? Haven't tried it yet) but I want to see: What do you think about doing this? Then maybe if I get approved results we'll start a whole new 'editing' job. $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Dec 30, 2014 at 20:43

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

As an aside, my personal choice would be , but I'm not an expert in that area.

In terms of adding tags in general, it's perfectly okay to suggest an edit with a reasonable one and let those reviewing edits make the call as to its appropriateness. I would avoid the overly specific, but the tags are something that can be discussed here, as you already know, so it's okay to get the tags in the right ballpark and hone them down later.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the "materials" tag is still too general. Wouldn't you think that "Carbon-Allotropes" would still be non-specific? So, I'm just adding the tag right now; you guys are gonna get so many suggested edits. $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Dec 31, 2014 at 13:33
  • $\begingroup$ Wait, I just edited this question and in the process, added the "Carbon-Allotropes" tag. What should we do now? Should we start editing all the related questions, one by one?! I don't see any other options. $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Dec 31, 2014 at 13:50
  • $\begingroup$ @MARamezani There's no way to batch retag things, so yes, they will have to be manually retagged. Remember that editing a post bumps it up on the front page, so try not to do too many all at once, please. $\endgroup$
    – jonsca
    Commented Dec 31, 2014 at 17:48
  • $\begingroup$ Alright so I now modify the 'worthy' questions. $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Dec 31, 2014 at 19:11
  • $\begingroup$ @MARamezani We do now have the almost unused fullerenes, the slightly more used allotropes, but we also have graphite and carbon-allotropes. I often was tempted to kill fullerene and graphite, but since they have special features let them be. I think now would be the time to merge them into the newly created (keep synonyms). Since the allotropes are only used in conjunction with graphite, kill that one completely. $\endgroup$
    – Martin - マーチン Mod
    Commented Jan 1, 2015 at 16:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin, I can't kill any poor tags in here. :) No kidding, my reputation doesn't allow me. I, personally, think that out of the tags you mentioned, it's a good idea if we keep "allotropes" and "carbon-allotropes", maybe with "graphite". Now my brain is like NY's streets, thinking about whether it's a good idea to keep "graphite" or not. $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Jan 1, 2015 at 16:32
  • $\begingroup$ @MARamezani Everybody can kill tags. Simply delete them in the posts and when your edit is approved, then they will disappear. If a tag is not used, it will be gone in a day. There is absolutely no reason to keep graphite and fullerenes as proper tags, if we have carbon-allotropes already. (Keeping them as synonyms will ensure, that the appropriate tag will be used in the future.) The allotropes tag will disappear in the process of editing. $\endgroup$
    – Martin - マーチン Mod
    Commented Jan 1, 2015 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I edited the good enough questions enough for one day. As @Jonsca mentions, let's not have so many old questions popping up at the beginning of the "active" section. $\endgroup$
    – M.A.R.
    Commented Jan 1, 2015 at 17:02
3
$\begingroup$

I believe that would be more appropriate than but is a more accurate and specific tag. Considering the large amount of research in material sciences right now with grapehene, I think it would be more appropriate to keep it nested in its carbon family.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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