5
$\begingroup$

At the moment we have a couple of tags dealing with literature in different ways. The most common ones are and , where the first one deals specifically with recommendations for books while the other one is broader (but seldomly used). However, we also have and .

To me, these latter two should be synonyms to , since the first one is implied at the site (we are dealing with scientific literature) and most literature questions is dealing with literature searches either way (asking for articles, how to search for sets of articles, what books to look at etc). However, I cannot suggest these synonyms (and almost nobody would be able to vote for them), so I suggest that one of the moderators should merge the tags. Having and as the main tags should be sufficient for the site at the moment.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I think this is a good idea. If nobody opposes it, I will merge all related tags into literature. $\endgroup$ – Chris Mod Mar 13 '17 at 12:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Merging was done, now book-recommendation and literature are left. $\endgroup$ – Chris Mod Apr 10 '17 at 9:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Chris Great! A small step in cleaning up the tags... $\endgroup$ – fileunderwater Apr 10 '17 at 9:29
  • $\begingroup$ I agree, we have a number of not really used tags... $\endgroup$ – Chris Mod Apr 10 '17 at 9:31
1
$\begingroup$

Absolutely agree.

plus IMO it is good decision to keep 2 separate tags for and ; because in spite of a grey-zone between the 2 (actually books are subset of literature) , they would have some practical difference. We commonly look for (1) books when we want to know the basics, the principles, and the brief, ultimate declaration-statement cumulated from many researches. On other hand (2) literatures excluding book, which may be (2)A. Research-papers / journals; pieces of close-ups of research (what exactly they have did, in details) or (2)B. Data-books, though books, a different sort of book (probably no one would 'recommend' as a basic book, so I'm putting them in second category), such as a regional flora or the CRC-handbook or that type of things.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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