• 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.


Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

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

124 submissions , 105 unreviewed
3,647 questions , 1,242 unanswered
4,638 answers , 19,680 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
435 active unimported users
More ...

Conventions regarding Tag's

+ 11 like - 0 dislike

I think its very important to have a good and consistent way of tagging questions, in order to make questions/answers easier to locate in the future. Therefore, I was wondering if we have some conventions or general guidelines on how to approach this problem? If not, should we agree on something?

First of all, there already seems to be a few redundant tags. For example cond-math.stat-mech, since its already covered in cond-mat and statistical-mechanics. Should we clean up redundancies?

How specialized should tags be? This site will contain many highly specialized questions, and I fear that it will be hard to locate good questions/answers if there are 800 questions with only the same generic tags like quantum-field-theory and symmetry.

How many tags are too many/few? Take for example the question "direct sum of anyons?", it has only very generic tags like quantum-mechanics and quantum-computing. But people searching for such a question might benefit from more tags like: cond-mat, math-ph, fractional-statistics (or anyons), quantum-hall-effect and maybe even more specialized, category-theory. Would this be too many tags? Should we have a guideline saying something like: 3 generic tags and 2 specialized?

And finally, since there are only 107 questions, should we go through and tag them all in a better way (if needed)?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
closed as a duplicate of: How should our tags look like in Q&A?
asked Oct 17, 2011 in SE.TP.discussion by Heidar (855 points) [ no revision ]
closed Apr 22, 2014 as per community consensus

1 Answer

+ 8 like - 0 dislike

There's a limit of (I believe) five tags, but I don't think it's a good idea to encourage people to use all of them. I think that a question should have at least one specific and one generic tag, and should only use more than two if it fits well within the areas of several tags (which a lot of questions will do).

A related question is whether we want to use arXiv tags, which works really well in MO. But in physics, there are many fewer arXiv tags, and some are like , and any specific question tagged this might be tagged better if it was replaced by and/or .

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Oct 17, 2011 by Peter Shor (780 points) [ no revision ]

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

Your rights