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?
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 almost completely asynchonous with respect to calendar decades.
Hmm. Thinking about a bit longer, there could be a use for a similar system, or even two.
Years. For some questions a specific year could be named - much like Wiki having pages (and categories) by year.
Tags in form of
post-1970and 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
post-microprocessor to separate certain eras instead of development.
Just thinking out loud.
I was falling on the "I don't see how they help side," and I'm now convinced by the other arguments here against such tags.
However, we do currently have tags 1990s and 1950s, and someone's recently been running around adding these and proposed new decade tags to posts. Can someone delete those current two decade tags so that new users don't get confused and start adding decade tags to new and existing posts?
In computing the more discernable eras are not by decade but by word size.
There's the 8-bit era, the 16-bit era, the 32-bit era, and the 64-bit era.
I think all of those word-size tags would be useful and serve more than just for designating the eras.
I don't think there's any name for the pre-8-bit early days, nor is any tag needed. There will surely be future discernible eras but 128-bit word sizes are probably not very useful so when those eras come people will surely have ways to refer to them. Anyway the future doesn't concern us at retro so who cares? (-: