Question: It seems there are the beginnings of an edit war going on with [how can counting the number of cracks in glass tell you about the speed of imact?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/78191).

Now the question has a few problems:

* It doesn't stand particularly well on its own, requiring reading an external link for background.
* It doesn't discuss the question in such a way as to guide answers to the desired level of detail.
* It is partially phrased in the imperative, rather than the interrogative.

**However**, as far as I can tell, **it has nothing to do with homework**, either in actuality or conceptually. Someone was reading a scientific news article and had a question about the physics behind a phenomenon. It certainly doesn't sound like someone wants a particular problem solved - I read it as asking for the concepts behind some claim.

So **why was this tagged as homework?** Is the new policy to use [homework](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework "show questions tagged 'homework'") to filter out questions certain users don't particularly like?

Answer: 
My take on this is two-fold:

First, don't start edit wars. If you put something on a question, and somebody later removes it, don't just go back in and put it back again and leave comments about it. Take it to meta, take it to chat, and actually discuss it rather than take it out to 7 revisions. When people disagree, use the channels we have to resolve it face-to-face (or I suppose keyboard-to-keyboard). 

Second, I do not think that is a homework question. Not just in the strict sense but in the sense we defined. OP is looking for a physical concept that is not understood to be explained. It's no different than the myriad of questions about how we know gravity exists, why there are only 4 dimensions in space-time, etc.. To me, the OP doesn't understand the physical correlation between impact velocity and fracture in glass and would like an understanding of the concepts behind it. 

So I do not think it should be tagged as homework. All that said, I think the question is poorly formed because it doesn't mention what part is confusing, asks answers to go read an article rather than summarize it, and shows very little effort. It should be downvoted, maybe closed, but that's a different conversation.
I'm late to the party but I want to say this.

The original phrasing for this question closely matched a very common pattern seen in real homework questions:

> 
> [Statement of a homework or other textbook problem.]
> 
> 
> Solve this please.
> 
> 
> 

There are a number of variations of this (see e.g. [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/763/amount-of-2-amperage) or [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/77769/how-can-you-prove-generalised-jacobi-identity) or [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/69991/what-is-the-alternative-of-pmg-permanent-magnet-generator-in-a-horizontal-axis) question) but they generally give a feeling of entitlement: the OP *demands* (even if they do it politely) that some expert drop what she's doing and give him exactly the explanation - without overdoing it and using only the right hints - that will get them an A.

I do not think this should have the homework tag on it, but I can definitely understand a certain trigger-happiness on the part of the people that wanted that.