But is it helpful to introduce new broader tags for questions we don't even have? Tags are here for categorization—what categorization purpose would that serve? How does it help to narrow down a search, and how does it help to watch specific subjects of interest?

Maybe we should have evidence of that before using a tag for a term that is consistently vague and confusing?

Would it be inadequately served by the combination of the existing quantum-computing and voting tags?

@Ievgeni Which questions do we have about ‘quantum e-voting’ and why would they not be better served by a quantum-voting tag? (What is quantum e-voting, and is there any serious cryptographic literature on the subject? arxiv.org/abs/1810.05083 suggests the answer may be no.)

Nobody's censoring anything here. There are legitimate questions about what the NIST SP 800-22 ‘randomness testing’ and SP 800-90B ‘entropy estimation’ tools mean. But they have very little significance in cryptography despite common misapprehensions to the contrary. This question at hand is about what we want to hold up as exemplars, not what invites hot air full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.