1
$\begingroup$

There is a and a tag.

The respective use of each tag, to date, is as follows:

One of the printing-powder tagged questions is closed, and the other is also tagged metal-powder, and both questions were about metal-powder.

Therefore, should the two tags be merged, as (currently), they both refer to the same thing, namely, metal powder?

I guess that, as there is other printing powders available, the tag could be left in-situ, but why not remove it, and if it is subsequently required, then let it be recreated?

[and/or]... remove the double tagging from this question, Why can't powder-based 3D printing techniques create enclosed or hollow structures?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ From my perspective, Metal-Powder is Printing-Powder, but Printing-Powder is not Metal-Powder as it can technically be Plastic-Powder, Sugar-Powder, or pretty much any other material category used in 3D Printing. $\endgroup$ – tbm0115 Feb 2 '17 at 15:25
  • $\begingroup$ @tbm0115 - Both Starwind and yourself are, obviously, correct, now that I have had time to reflect upon my question. I think that I was just getting a bit over zealous with the cleaning up. At the time, my question seemed to make sense to me, now I am not so sure as to what I was trying to get at... $\endgroup$ – Greenonline Feb 4 '17 at 1:20
3
$\begingroup$

In my opinion it should not. There is a distinction. If someone said powder printing to me, I would think of powder + glue printers. Metal powder is pulverized metal that are bound with an insanely expensive laser.

That said no everyone will tag with that distinction in mind. Which has little to no impact.

It could also be argued that it is a subset. IE I see a Java tag on SO. I also will use Android. Or I might use an FDM tag here with a PLA tag.

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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