0
$\begingroup$

This is sort of a goofy-sounding tag. I'm not sure what the guy who thought this one up had in mind, but I think that "applications" or "applied-science" would be a better wording.

$\endgroup$
2
3
$\begingroup$

, , make no sense. A tag notes a sub-domain, a topic, a class of questions that people will be particularly interested in or particularly not interested in. Distinguishing between theory and applications (as opposed to particular theoretic or applied domains) is useless.

Let's get rid of .

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, this was sort of my feeling, perhaps, as well. It's almost like a meta tag... not useful in isolation, only modifying others. Really evil. $\endgroup$
    – Patrick87
    Apr 25 '12 at 11:03
0
$\begingroup$

I think I created it. The rationale was probably the wish to tag applied questions, that is not purely theoretic (as in TCS, but also as in purely academic) ones, so that people not interested in theory can easily grab what they want.

I still think it can be a useful tag. We have not used it consistently, though, and should start doing so if we decide to keep it.

The name can certainly be discussed. is bad, imho, as it is ambiguous for people that do not have a (formal) CS background and do not bother to read FAQ and tag excerpts; given the amount of mistagging we have, this seems to be real danger (even if maybe not a problem). sounds as if it included more than computer science, but this is not a problem in the context of this site. It also fits above motivation better.

Tl;dr: Keep the tag, but rename to .

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I'd like the applied-science tag better... of course, there was no intention to offend anyone who made any of these tags (I think Kaveh might have been a little offended at some of my comically rude phrasing). Naturally, I'm only suggesting this to see what others think... if the community wants the tags like they are, I won't lose any sleep ;D $\endgroup$
    – Patrick87
    Apr 24 '12 at 20:40
  • $\begingroup$ I disagree. applied (or applied-science or whatever) is far too vast. We might have tags for physics, biology and so on, for applications to other disciplines. Why not go the other way round and tag theory questions theory? The tag makes no sense. $\endgroup$ Apr 24 '12 at 23:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ the tag made sense on cstheory where we wanted to make sure practical applications of theory are also on-topic and research-level restriction is more relaxed for them, but I don't think it makes much sense on Computer Science. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Apr 24 '12 at 23:26

You must log in to answer this question.

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