3

I noticed that we have two very similar tags: and .

They are tagged on all the same questions (3 total by the same author, see Are my questions about the 8080 family of processors and software on topic?), have the same number of followers (2, probably the same people), and nearly have the exact same wiki!

I'm not sure which one should stay if they are duplicates. I don't like numeric-only tags because it's not immediately obvious what they're for, but this shouldn't be a problem once we get more wikis done.

We should pick one style of tags. These tags already exist:

  • (AKA 80386, should it be renamed for constancy?)
  • (AKA 286, should it be renamed for constancy?)

Also related (maybe?):

4

You've got a good point about numbers, but I think in this realm people will actually be more familiar with than they would with , and in that scenario I'd be hesitant to use unless it specifically referred to an Intel chip since in those days competing manufacturers could also make a chip called a 386.

While personally I associate with I feel that those searching for information online are more likely to simply type '6502' into their search engine of choice.

In short, I feel like we should lean towards the the 'common' names for tags such as , and but use synonyms where appropriate, i.e. if a question is more specific to a vendor or particular model. A case of that would be using instead of if you were interested in the details of the 68030's instruction cache.

  • 2
    I think you make some good points, but you're missing some important things about the tag system/SEO. I think that having the keywords in the title is better for SEO; the most popular tag is added automatically to the title if it isn't already there. Tags are mostly a way of organizing things when on the site. It is important to weigh if it will inhibit the search/categorization ability on the site to have more/less granular tag categories. – Laurel May 31 '16 at 7:33
  • 3
    Good point on the 386 clones: Wikipedia lists four designs, from five manufacturers. – Mark May 31 '16 at 19:46
  • Should we use synonyms? – wizzwizz4 Jun 1 '16 at 7:52
  • I think they're useful for 'collecting' questions that get tagged wrongly. 6502 and mos-6502 feel like a good candidate for synonyms, but not 368 and intel-386. – Matt Lacey Jun 2 '16 at 0:41
  • 3
    @LaceySnr We do have a separate intel tag... Would it be practical to replace [intel-386] with [intel] and [386]? – Laurel Jun 2 '16 at 19:02
  • Yeah that seems logical to me. Good call @Laurel! – Matt Lacey Jun 2 '16 at 20:29
  • 1
    @LaceySnr 6502 captures mos-6502 by substring match, though... – a CVn Jun 25 '16 at 18:30
  • "A case of that would be using 68030 instead of 68k" Which then again opens the question of generc vs. specific tags, as it is (as of now) unwanted to have overlaping tags. – Raffzahn Aug 27 '18 at 22:14
1

I just asked a question about the 8080. My tag choices were and . I chose the later because it's more informative. Wikipedia calls it the Intel 8080.

As of writing, when you type 80, the suggestions are z80, 8080, atari-800, motorola-68000 and 80286, so having more specific tags will not hinder finding the right tags. Note that the tags are 80286, but just 386. 80386 is mentioned in that tag's description, but the descriptions do not get searched in.

I would support tags such as and to differentiate between the standard chip and specifically non-standard chips.

You must log in to answer this question.

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