1
$\begingroup$

The tag has 21 questions and its excerpt says:

Questions about Near-Earth Objects or NEO for short, a term describing meteoroids, asteroids, comets, man-made spacecraft, space observatories, and space debris whose orbit brings them into proximity with Earth.

The tag has 29 questions and no excerpt.

There are only three question that have both tags (all mine).

Question: Is this okay? Are they exclusive distinctions? Should they be merged?

note: I've just asked in Astronomy SE: Is there a distinction between NEO's and near-earth-asteroids? Is there a difference? Hopefully we can gain some perspective from answers there. I noticed that Astronomy SE has only near-earth-object.

| |
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Near-Earth asteroids are a perfect subset of Near-Earth objects, which means that the tag is distinct, though overlapping. Since has more questions than , I think it makes sense to maintain as a separate tag, but it could use a tag excerpt as you've pointed out.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ my concern is that out of 47 questions there are only three that have both tags. I haven't read through them yet, but if someone is looking for questions about near-earth-objects with the neo tag (which should be a catch-all), they're going to miss the 26 questions lacking that tag, but instead were tagged near-earth-asteroid. I don't see how this situation is good. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 20 at 14:54
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh That can be remedied by referring to near-earth-asteroids in the excerpt or wiki for neo (depending on whether the excerpt has enough space). $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Feb 20 at 15:21
  • $\begingroup$ That way users know there's another tag to search. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Feb 20 at 15:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh I added "See also: [near-earth-asteroid]" to the neo excerpt and "See also: [neo]" to the near-earth-asteroid excerpt. I also created the synonym near-earth-object for neo. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Feb 20 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ yippeeee! Thanks, problem solved. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 20 at 15:31

You must log in to answer this question.

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