# Tag Info

26

YES! We really do need MathJax on here. There's going to be a lot of times in which we need to reference formulas, or other such stuff, and MathJax will make everything a lot easier in these cases. The Stack Exchange team looks for posts that would benefit by having MathJax, so let's make a list of such posts. Some posts that could use this: How is ocean ...

13

We only need one of these tags, and climate-change should be the master.

11

$$\sum{answers} = MathJax\ enabled$$

10

List of questions that would benefit from mhchem: Peak phosphorus - what are the sinks? What would happen if we could revert $\mathrm{CO}_2$ production but took it too far? How were we able to measure carbon dioxide levels in earlier climates? How does radiogenic argon-40 get into the atmosphere? (features a reaction) How does one create petroleum/crude oil ...

9

I think we should make enso the master tag and make both el-nino and la-nina synonyms to it. To do this we'll need to re-tag one of the el-nino questions to enso to create the tag and then we can synonym the other tags to it. I can take care of this if the community agrees. I'll leave this here for a bit to see how the votes turn out, but I don't see any ...

7

This question was retagged, so the tag will cease to exist at 3:00 UTC. An automated script deletes any "zombie" tags at 3:00 UTC.

7

100% yes. A perfect next step to addressing the problem, avoiding going to extremes. And really seems to offer hope of solving issues because it makes it more straightforward to close. Honestly one main reason I tend not to close-vote now on such questions is because I'm concerned people may not understand why it was done. If the issues a question has ...

6

Sure, done.

5

These tags should not be synonyms.

4

Seriously, everybody, this is obsolete The proposal I put below served as a good stopgap, but a decision has been made and we have a custom close reason for subpar rock identification questions. Please use that instead. Not "off-topic", but "unclear" Although I think making all rock-identification questions off-topic is heavy-handed, we can always VTC bad ...

4

I totally agree... I fear that a lot of people don't even read the guidelines for rock id. They shoot some badly lit and out of focus pictures with their smartphones and only have in mind that they can clearly see how the rock looks like. I get several fossil id requests per week, most of them look like the pictures posted here. When I ask the people about ...

3

This should now be live, as I just approved a new custom close reason: This question does not appear to be about earth science, within the scope defined in the help center.

3

The high flux of low quality questions has put the community under stress and that can lead to loss of active users which is of course very bad, while the value added to the site by "what kind is my specific rock" questions with answers of the form "it is X" is almost zero. If the Q rate were low and the community willing (an example of that kind of thing ...

3

It's now possible describe stratospheric ozone with equations: $$\ce{O2 ->[\text{uv light}] 2 O}\\ \ce{O2 + O -> O3}$$ Some helpful information: A guide on the basics of mhchem. Resist the urge to overuse $\TeX$. Other than that... enjoy!

3

I'm in agreement with much of what most people (@Gimelist, @Jan_Doggen, @Semidiurnal_Simon, @ JeopardyTempest) have stated here. In many ways I'd like to see such questions made Off-Topic because there's more to earth science than identifying rocks. If the posts have no picture or a poor quality picture, if there is not enough useful detail in the ...

3

I'll be honest... I too have been thinking about making a similar post. I've always tended to support such questions being a part of our community, and tried in the past to improve their quality. But it seems to be only spiraling downward: In the last 24 hours 5 of the 12 questions with activity are rock identification questions. They include 1 with no ...

2

The tag is not used by any question now. The system will delete it automatically. The only bad thing that can happen is that someone re-uses it by mistake. Hopefully it won't be the case.

2

We tried a custom off-topic close reason, but community consensus was that it was not enough. Therefore, as of 2019-07-30, rock identification questions are off-topic. (old answer) On Graphics Design, there is a custom off-topic close reason that is regularly used for their font-identification requests. We can do similar for our rock identification-...

2

I agree the situation is insupportable. However, since I know nothing about how high-level moderation works, I'd like to know the specific technical steps that would be taken to "ban" rock ID questions that would make the situation better than it is now. As I stated in an earlier version of this discussion, I have no problem with an immediate VTC of any ...

2

This is now live. As of 2019-07-30, rock identification questions are off-topic on Earth Science Stack Exchange. Please redirect any discussion on the practicalities of implementing this ban to that question.

1

I disagree the proposal on the following reasons: To make the site successful, we need to be so inclusive as possible (without significantly reducing the content quality). Currently, there is no site on the SE network, where rock identification questions could be asked. There is no "Geology SE". Earth Science SE can, and should be interpreted to ...

1

This is no longer relevant. All rock identification questions are now off-topic. As of 2019-07-30, Rock ID questions are off-topic or Earth Science Stack Exchange. See this meta post for more information. This decision has followed years of tolerating an increasing number of often poor rock identification questions. We have tried to use a detailed guide,...

1