Do we need the ORBITAL tag?

Question

I think almost all (if not all) of the 18 instances of the orbital tag could be replaced with orbital-mechanics 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?

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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. orbital-mechanics works, and we have many orbit-specific tags

orbit sub-orbital very-low-earth-orbit low-earth-orbit polar-orbit retrograde-orbit medium-earth-orbit geostationary high-earth-orbit halo-orbit lissajous-orbit lunar-orbit

and other tags about orbits (partial list):

orbital-insertion orbital-maneuver orbital-elements orbit-determination orbital-resonance

I don't think we need orbital as well.