3
$\begingroup$

I think almost all (if not all) of the 18 instances of the tag could be replaced with or just be removed. There's only one question where it is the only tag currently present.

There's no usage guidance; I think the tag is simply unnecessary.

Do we need this tag? If not, what would be the most prudent way to proceed?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

From what I can see, the current usage of the tag is:

  1. General orbital mechanics questions.
  2. Systems in Earth orbit.
  3. Launches specifically dealing with reaching orbit, like sub-orbital vs. orbital comparisons.

From what I can see, only 1) is strictly unnecessary. (skimming the 18 questions, I think that's the case for 8-10 of them)

It's a nice and simple tag though, so I feel that if the missing usage guidance problem is dealt with, it could be a reasonable tag.

Things to do:

  • Remove it from some of the orbital mechanics questions.
  • Come up with a usage guidance. I think describing what it is would be more valuable than outright removing it. We just don't have it well-defined yet.
$\endgroup$
0
1
$\begingroup$

Do we need the ORBITAL tag?

No.

While the tag is "nice" I don't see an argument that it serves a specific function, or that the site is better because of it. works, and we have many orbit-specific tags

and other tags about orbits (partial list):

I don't think we need as well.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think a case could probably be made for merging orbital with orbit. $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    Aug 26 at 15:13
  • $\begingroup$ @called2voyage there's only 18 questions, I'll go through them in the morning to see if there are any for which that wouldn't work and retag, that way if the decision is made they'll be ready. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Aug 26 at 15:20

You must log in to answer this question.

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