Post History

[science-based] almost certainly should be removed - I think we can safely assume that a site called Speculative Science is going to require science-based answers across the board. If an post's not based in science, it's probably not appropriate for the site, period. I'd definitely support removing the tag from all questions, and blacklisting it, if that's possible from a technical perspective.

I think we could make a similar argument for [reality-check]. Invoking real-world science should by definition give the poster something of a reality check. We're no longer talking about imaginary worlds (for which [reality-check] may still be appropriate, just referencing to the laws of science in those universes); we're talking about *our* world. I do anticipate questions perhaps being divided along the lines of "What would happen if [thing]?"/"Is [thing] realistic?", and in that case the latter is explicitly asking for a reality check while the former is not. I assume a large number of questions will in that sense be reality check questions (which we already see on Worldbuilding), and perhaps having an entire tag for a fairly large fraction of the site is unhelpful.

(All of this of course ignores [the additional arguments against having most meta tags in general](https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/08/07/the-death-of-meta-tags/). I wonder if having the additional category of Researched Q&A will show if a category is more effective at delimiting question types than a tag is. I suspect that's going to be the case, but time will tell.)