4
$\begingroup$

Should we reserve the use of discipline tags for question related to the history of the discipline?

The tag has been widely (3/4 questions, detagged since) used to ask for data-treatment answers to questions relating to a wide range of science (mainly, history of academia and earth science). At the same time, it is also used for questions relating to the history of statistics. Is this OK?

For an ambiguous misuse look here (I realy would love to have the OPs opinion on this).

For a clear misuse look there.

For a IMO-correct use look at this.

| |
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Nope. On a history of science website, we should be careful not to mix history of science and usage of science to investigate history.

Tags should primarily reflect the question, not the possible answers, so I do not recommend tags that force the answers to use a particular science as a basis. If you do wish to enforce such a framework for answers on your question, I've introduced the tag for this (and re-tagged litigious questions ).

| |
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Yes. Who cares, let's just mix use cases here. For such a minor distinction, it's better not to split tags as new users won't know how to use them anyway.

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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