15
$\begingroup$

Update:

For (1), I have edited info of .

For (2), moderator Alexander Gruber♦ has created a synonym and contributor YuiTo Cheng improved info of .

For (3), contributor YuiTo Cheng added info and usage of .

For (5), I have edited info of and I think there's still room for improvement.


I edited some questions about with and these days, and I'd like to share my ideas here.

[Solved] (1) About , some users (mainly from Physics SE) wrongly use this tag for questions about physical field (gravitational field, electronmagnetic field, quantum field etc.), and some wrongly use this tag for questions about vector field. To avoid misunderstanding, maybe we could add something in tag info like this(?): Do not use this tag for questions about physical field, use [quantum-field-theory] or other tags instead.

[Solved] (2) About for topological-quantum-field-theory, although tqft is an abbreviation, it's hard for users to find the existence of this tag or recall this when adding tags. (There were 6 questions with this tag before, after my edit, there're 18 now.) When you typing "topo...", won't show up. Since I don't have the privilege to do so, I sincerely suggest rename this tag as [topological-field-theory] for users' convenience, and this doesn't change its meaning. What's more, the tag info should be updated.

[Solved] (3) About , there's no usage guidance and tag wiki yet :(

(4) About , there're some questions about gauge field theory with this tag, although they may not relevant apparently, I don't think we should add a tag [gauge-field-theory], is enough.

[Solved] (5) About , this tag is wrongly used in many elementary physical questions and I deleted a lot of this tag these days, my thoughts are here. Maybe we should explain more in usage guidance.

Thanks for your kindly discussion. For our better community :)

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC you can edit tag wikis from the start, it's just that you have to get to 5,000 rep to be able to have your edits take effect without someone reviewing them (stackoverflow.com/help/privileges/approve-tag-wiki-edits). $\endgroup$ – Eevee Trainer Mar 7 at 6:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Addendum: that said, usually "major" tag changes are preferred to be discussed here first, from what I've seen. This namely concerns creation/deletion, I'm not sure if that extends as far as the community cares to renaming and such. Just wanted to mention it in case you get hasty and enact the changes yourself. $\endgroup$ – Eevee Trainer Mar 7 at 6:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @EeveeTrainer No, you need 5,000 rep to review tag wiki edits, but unlike questions and answers, your edits still need to be approved until you get 20,000 rep. I recently edited a tag wiki/excerpt and it had to be reviewed by other users (who had less rep than me). See also this. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Mar 7 at 8:55
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, I see. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Eevee Trainer Mar 7 at 9:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Regarding (2) - it would be better to created a tag synonym (topological-quantum-field-theory) $\to$ (tqft) (similarly as on MathOverflow). After creating such synonym, the tag will be offered when a poster starts typing any of the two names. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Mar 7 at 9:01
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding (1) - if this happens very often, possibility of adding a tag-warning could be considered: Do we want tag warnings, and for which tags? $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Mar 7 at 9:03
  • $\begingroup$ @EeveeTrainer Thanks for your mention, I'll edit tag info and tag wiki by myself. $\endgroup$ – Andrews Mar 7 at 9:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have already created tag [topological-quantum-field-theory] in this edit, but I don't have the privilege to suggest a synonym yet (need 2500rep). $\endgroup$ – Andrews Mar 7 at 10:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I just added a proposed tag rename/synonym on the tag management 2019 thread. I was made aware of this post only after adding my suggestion. As I did there, I would recommend pluralising the topological-quantum-field-theory tag. $\endgroup$ – Dan Rust Mar 7 at 14:57
  • $\begingroup$ In connection with (5), perhaps adding a warning for this tag might be useful: Do we want tag warnings, and for which tags? (I'll leave the the people who are active in the (mathematical-physics) tag to decide whether to post a suggestion for a tag-warning in the linked thread.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Mar 24 at 9:07
10
$\begingroup$

Concerning the proposed [quantum-field-theory] tag: Not all "field theory" questions in physics are about quantum field theory. Questions about general relativity, Maxwell's equations, or the Navier-Stokes equations are all about "field theory", but they're about classical field theories, where there's no $\hbar$ in sight. Mathematically, the machineries required to deal with classical vs. quantum field theories are also quite different.

I'm not sure how to include both classical and quantum field theories in a single, well-recognized umbrella term that differentiates it from fields in the abstract-algebraic sense; in physics, the umbrella term is "field theory". Perhaps creating [classical-field-theory] and [quantum-field-theory] tags would be the best approach. Alternately, using [field-theory-physics] might work, even if it seems a bit clunky; it would have the advantage that it would pop up in the autocomplete box when a user started to type "field theory".

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for your opinions. Yes, you're right. Not all field theories are about qft, that's why I say "use [quantum-field-theory] or other tags instead". For questions about general relativity, Maxwell's equations, or the Navier-Stokes equations, I believe [general-relativity], [electromagnetism], [pde]&[fluid-dynamics] together with [mathematical-physics] is enough and we don't need an umbralla term actually, so in my opinion, it may not be so necessary to introduce tag [classical-field-theory] or [field-theory-physics]. $\endgroup$ – Andrews Mar 7 at 15:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I find the point about auto-completion quite attractive. Admittedly I don't recall seeing too many mistagged questions. I guess we have several people with enough physics background correcting the eventual mistakes. I will keep reading this thread to learn how I can better retag in the future. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Mar 9 at 19:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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