• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,600 questions , 1,219 unanswered
4,605 answers , 19,558 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
424 active unimported users
More ...

Should we use Arxiv tags?

+ 19 like - 1 dislike

I've just noticed that the site is up and running, and that we already have 8 questions on the main site.

May I suggest that we adopt a policy from cstheory: every post on the main site should be tagged with at least on arxiv tag, i.e. quant-ph, hep-th, etc.

The reason for doing so is that there are finitely many such tags, and they tend to align well with our research interests, making it much easier to filter posts.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Sep 15, 2011 in SE.TP.discussion by Joe Fitzsimons (3,555 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Mar 7, 2014 by dimension10
Most voted comments show all comments
For everyone's information, [the complete list](http://arxiv.org/): astrophysics - astro-ph, condensed matter - cond-mat, general relativity and quantum cosmology - gr-qc, high energy experiment - hep-ex, high energy lattice - hep-lat, high energy phenomenology - hep-ph, high energy theory - hep-th, mathematical physics - math-ph, nuclear experiment - nucl-ex, nuclear theory - nucl-th, physics (everything else) - physics, quantum physics - quant-ph.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Kaveh: yes, I forgot about that.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@UGPhysics: Nothing is up to me. I just proposed the site, but it's community driven. Just post it as a question on meta, and see how the community here reacts.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
ok. (Currently my Reputation points are limited, so I may not be able to post it here for some time. --- But if you had liked the idea maybe you may like to share it here (migrate the question from Area51)).

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@UGPhysics: you get the required rep pretty quickly. A single interesting question or answer is enough to do it. It would be much better if you post your idea, as its yours and you are in a better position to explain and defend it.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Most recent comments show all comments
@Joe: since we've already defined the site as research-specific, why not use the [PACS2010](http://aip.org/pacs/pacs2010/individuals/pacs2010_regular_edition/alpha_index.html) system specific to theory- and math- physics? ... (And also, for papers, as I had [suggested as before](http://discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/2860/theoretical-physics-a-sub-section-for-research-and-research-level-review-paper), or PACS2010 also.)

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
(Update: Just got 5 Reputation points. Posting as a question.)

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

3 Answers

+ 5 like - 0 dislike

I don't like the idea of using arXiv tags. While arXiv itself is great, I don't find its classification particularly useful. I would prefer to use standard tag system, given people do it precisely.


  • arXiv tags are not equally distributed (by means of scientists, fields closeness, ...)
  • arXiv tags are heavily influenced by the history of arXiv (i.e. evolution from hep-ph, through quant-ph to other branches)
  • arXiv tags are rigid - they do not evolve in the same way as the interest of scientist evolve
  • one or two arXiv tags means one or two less better suited tags

By 'standard tag system' I understand naturally emerging tags, instead for ones imposed from above.

Moreover, I consider mathematical tags one arXiv better organized, so the MathOverflow example on that matter is not that relevant (at least, IMHO).

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Sep 15, 2011 by Piotr Migdal (1,250 points) [ no revision ]
Would you mind adding what it is about the classification system that you don't find useful? Not enough depth/divisions? Divisions to arbitrary?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@rcoller: Not enough fine grading, tags rather historically created than dynamically based on the dynamical need.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Piotr: you can apply finer grain using the additional tags if necessary.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Joe: Of course. But this adds one (perhaps misleading) tag more. Tags in physics (e.g. contrary to mathematics) are heavily historically-based.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Piotr: two questions: (i) please define what you mean by "standard tag system"; and (ii) at the very minimum, I'm in support of having arXiv tags (minus most 'physics' categories) if, as I was suggesting, other standardised tagging systems aren't adopted (e.g. inSPIRE, etc.). What are your views on this?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@UGPhysics: Are edited my post a bit. My views (based on a project I am currently developing, http://confrenzy.com) is that now emergent tags (with some self-moderation) are way better than rigid historically-based categorizations (and the difference grows in time).

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
+ 3 like - 0 dislike

In general, I like the idea, however mandating a tag be used reduces the number of tags available to 4. This may be sufficient, in most cases. But, should be considered in the decision.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Sep 15, 2011 by rcollyer (240 points) [ no revision ]
I don't see that as a down side. People have a tendency (at least on other SE sites) to make up tags, rather than using existing ones, which sort of defeats the purpose of having tags in the first place.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Joe, as was mentioned in Kaveh's link to MO. I tend to agree, but I thought the added constraint should be pointed out.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
+ 2 like - 0 dislike

Agreed, and maybe the SE team can put that as a requirement in the tag field just as meta requires at least one tag out of , , or . I think any question not being tag-able with an arxiv-tag might be wrong here anyway. The tag is of course to general, so the question is wether to blacklist it or to accept is a kind "I didn't know which arxiv-tag to use" tag1

1) though that almost sounds like a cloaked meta-tag...

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Sep 15, 2011 by Tobias Kienzler (255 points) [ no revision ]
"physics" might be useful for classical physics. I notice that there is one question on classical mechanics at the moment. I wasn't really expecting them, but I don't think they are a priori off topic.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Joe good point, I cut that part out

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
We're not really fond of partitioning out the site that way... One of the big advantages of tagging is that you aren't locked into a set of fixed categories, with administrator intervention required if ever a new one becomes needed. Just about anyone on the site can *re-tag* a question, so if there's consensus that a certain scheme is important, you should have no trouble enacting it. Obviously, Meta is different, because... Well, Meta is effectively institutionalized abuse of the SE software. ;-P

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Shog9 that's a good point (and now I guess it won't help preventing off-topic questions as in "oh, there's no tag for that so I shouldn't ask here" since there will always be a tag generic enough...). What about a "please consider adding at least one [arxiv tag](link) to your question" reminder instead?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Joe: "classical-physics" is **much** better than "physics" for classical physics.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@PeterShor: Yes, probably. But I do think we should agree on a set of top-level tags.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights