5
$\begingroup$

Are "virus" and "virology" sufficiently different to justify two tags? Similarly, is there a reason to have narrow tags like "retrovirus" and "lentivirus", especially when there is no tag "bacteriophage"?

Would it not make more sense to have a single tag such as "virology" (all things related to viruses), and maybe something about "viral-vectors" for things that focus on lentiviral transduction, phage-mediated directed evolution and other things that are not about natural viruses?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I agree that many subclasses of tags, such as these, can be merged and subsequently removed. However, it's not my area of expertise, so I'd rather leave this to the experts to answer. $\endgroup$ – AliceD Jan 27 at 19:25
6
$\begingroup$

is a synonym of ; so any question tagged with the former will automatically be tagged as .

Regarding whether or are really needed: perhaps they may be useful in the context of the cell biology techniques (viral transduction) and diseases caused by retroviruses. Both of these are important areas of research.

Bacteriophage can also have a tag on it's own. If you have questions specifically related to bacteriophages then you can create a tag. All users above the reputation of 300 can create new tags.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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