• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

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

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,728 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  How should our tags look like in Q&A?

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

How should our tag names look like in Q&A?

On the blog, it was suggested that we could use ArXiV tags. I had upvoted the suggestion then, but now that I think about it, I don't like the idea very much. Not in Q&A. ArXiV tags are quite broad, like gr-qc, etc. There is no way it can have a (relatively) more specific tag like "heterotic-string", or "horava-witten-domain-wall", or something like that. They are also not particularly helpful for our SEO. They may seem to make the site look more professional, but they don't. They look funny, and make people roll their eyes, thinking "What a pathetic attempt to look professional or high-level.", effectively chasing them away from the site. 

It has however been suggested on Meta.TP.SE that while the tagging system need not be completely ArXiVised, every post must have (not technically must, but in terms of rules) an ArXiV tag. However, I agree with Piotr Migdal's answer there. I think that ArXiV tags are also skewed against Experimental Physics and Phenomenology. It also excludes a lot of fields, especially in Experimental Physics and Phenomenlogy.   

Another option is PACS, which has been suggested in Meta.TP.SE. However, this is too cryptic, and is not very helpful for our SEO either. Who in the world will understand what physics field 12.10.Kt is about without checking?   

Another possibility is MathsOverflow style top-level tags, like mp.mathematical-physics, or something like that. But Maths Overflow uses it as a replacement for a categorial system, which we already have (Note that as a mathematical site, ag.algebraic-geometry or mp.mathematical-physics make sense). We could implement the same concept for more specific things, like st.string-theory, qft.quantum-field-theory, lqg.loop-quantum-gravity, or something. But I think that my comment about "What a pathetic attempt to look professional or high-level." still applies (note that this does not apply to MathsOverflow because it uses such a structure as a replacement for a categorial system, which means that there is a practical reason.). 

Or, we could use the existing tag system, where tags arise out of need, and are physics terminology in lowercase with hyphens instead of spacebars. This makes most sense, I think. Why, even research papers use such tags (keywords). 

asked Mar 25, 2014 in Discussion by dimension10 (1,985 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

Maybe the ArXiv tags can be used to organize questions in the Reviews section, such that the ArXiv categories are the first level, the second level consists of the ArXiv tags, the keywords provide the third level, which can be specialized further by more specific physics terms at the forth level and below etc ...

In the Q&A part, I think it is enough to use tags as they arise out of need.

answered Mar 25, 2014 by Dilaton (6,240 points) [ no revision ]

Agreed. Regarding the reviewing, I agree but note that many ArXiV papers don't have keywords on them, especially those not submitted to a journal, so we will have to do that ourselves during the retagging. 

Also note, that the easiest way to have this "hierarchial tag system" for ArXiV papers is through sub-sub-categories, so the actual tags will have to be treated separately. 

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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights