# Should we blacklist or rename the highly misused [quantum-computer] tag, or enable a tag warning for it?

Currently the tag excerpt for currently says:

For questions about existing real-life computers that run on a quantum architecture. This is for questions about the machines themselves, not just any computing that could take place on one. DO NOT use this tag for questions about simulation or emulation of quantum computers, or cloud-based quantum computing services like the IBM Q Experience.

However, around 50% of times I find that this tag is heavily misused by new users. Some even use this tag for questions purely based on quantum algorithms. I recently had to re-tag ~50 questions where this tag was misused. I'm wondering whether we should blacklist it altogether or perhaps rename it to something more descriptive. Ideas? Suggestions?

One of our community managers (@Shog9) mentioned that even if we decide to retain the tag, it is possible to enable a warning for that particular tag. Should we go for that option instead?

Update: Following @glS's suggestion I retagged the questions having with , and made and synonyms of . I feel that's a better option than activating a tag-warning, as many users tend to ignore tag-warnings. Also, @DaftWullie's point is very valid. Let me know if you have any objections.

• what about renaming to something like quantum-hardware, or just hardware, or physical-device, or physical-implementation, or experimental-implementation, or similar? – glS Dec 17 '18 at 0:02
• @glS Yes, I think that's a good idea! We can go with physical-implementation and physical-realization, as synonymous tags, to replace the quantum-computer tag. Even Wikipedia seems to use the term "physical-realizations" for this purpose. Users can still ask a question like "Has any quantum algorithm been successfully executed on Google's Bristlecone processor?" with that tag, as it is a question about whether any quantum algorithm has been successfully run on an existing physical implementation of a quantum computer. – Sanchayan Dutta Dec 17 '18 at 16:30