2

Should 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. have their own tags? Personally I'm undecided but leaning towards no since things don't always break down cleanly by decade. What do y'all think?

3

I would say no. They would at best be meta-tags, that is, tags that couldn't stand alone on a question.

We have been running the site for the best part of three years without them. I would suggest we leave it that way.

  • (Three years? Wow. Doesn't time fly?) I'm not sure how good an argument that is, though, as there are always improvements that can be made to a system. You could instead point out that the tags are superfluous given a good tagging system, or something like that. – wizzwizz4 Jul 16 '18 at 18:42
  • Their superfluity was my main point. You're right in that the fact we've done without them doesn't make a good argument on its own. – Chenmunka Jul 17 '18 at 9:42
3

Should 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. have their own tags?

No. While many developments can be tied to a period of five or maybe 10 years relevance/usage, this period is almos complete asynchonus with calendar decades.


Hmm. Thinking about a bit longer, there could be a use for a similar system, or even two.

  1. Years. For some questions a specific year could be named - much like Wiki having pages (and cathegories) by year.

  2. Tags in form of pre-1950, post-1950, pre-1970, post-1970 and so on.

While the first is a rather generic thing, could the second be quite helpful to classify questions about certain areas and technologies.

An alternative could be made with tags like pre-/360, pre-minicomputer or post-microprocessor to seperate certain eras instead of development.

Just thinking out loud.

You must log in to answer this question.

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