2

The tag is not entirely obvious. I suggest we rename it to .

One of the reasons for my suggested replacement is to use terminology more consistent with the world outside of RC.SE. I offer as Wikipedia as evidence that "mechanical-computing" is more consistent with the rest of the world than "mechanical."

7
  • 1
    I don't see why we should lower our standards to those of Wikipaedia.
    – Chenmunka Mod
    Commented Mar 7, 2020 at 19:51
  • @Chenmunka That's a loaded comment. The assumption that our standards in general are higher than Wikipedia is unjusitfied (and probably incorrect, given that they clearly have higher standards for references than we do), and "mechanical" being better than "mechanical-computing" should be justified independent of any other standards.
    – cjs
    Commented Mar 8, 2020 at 2:40
  • 1
    Yes. The point being that Wikipaedia is a competitor site to StackExchange, so we shouldn't change just to align with them - or any other site. If the community feels we should rename the tag on the merit of the suggeston alone - good. Let's do it.
    – Chenmunka Mod
    Commented Mar 8, 2020 at 15:47
  • @Chenmunka I do not see how Wikipedia is a competitor site to SE, nor, if it were, would that mean we should deliberately choose different terminology to help us "win" or them "lose." I mention what Wikipedia uses to show that my suggested term is commonly known and used elsewhere and thus more likely to be known and understood by others.
    – cjs
    Commented Mar 8, 2020 at 23:31
  • cjs As usual, not every argument can be reversed. As I understand @Chenmunka 's argument, it's about not about blindly aligning with Wikipedia, but going our own way and drafting the taxonomy in a way that fits RC.SE best. THis does in no way imply that we have to do it different than Wikipedia, just that the way Wikipedia does it is no argument in itself. So if there an argument can be made in favour of the change, it would have to be self contained.
    – Raffzahn
    Commented Apr 2, 2020 at 10:57
  • @Raffzahn You are setting up a straw man argument. I agree that the way Wikipedia does it is no argument in itself. I have updated my post to try to make this more clear.
    – cjs
    Commented Apr 2, 2020 at 12:36
  • @cjs The update doesn't change the fact, that it's missing a consistent reasoning. BTW: Mind to explain what you're mean by trowing such nasty comments?
    – Raffzahn
    Commented Apr 2, 2020 at 15:00

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

I would favor the change. However, do note that is a subset of . Asking about how a daisy-wheel printer worked would be an example of , but not .

1
  • 3
    And we wouldn't want a tag that covers both. As we've seen in the past here, broad tags that cover things very different from each other (ibm, 1970s) are not really useful because expertise and utility of answers tend to be closely or distantly related by how an item works.
    – cjs
    Commented Apr 1, 2020 at 23:48
-2

No - it is redundant and serves no purpose.

RetroComputing is, as the name states, already about computing. That's the all covering base. So any tag is by default meant as a subset of computing. Thus there is not only no need to add it explicite a second time, but doing so defies structure and logic.

6
  • Retrocomputing is not about "computing" in the strict sense but in a much broader sense. For example, hooking up a printer or fixing a keyboard of does not involve computing values, yet is on-topic for this site if it involves an old computer, or old printer or keyboard, or both.
    – cjs
    Commented Apr 2, 2020 at 12:38
  • @cjs Exactly, It's about the broad context of computing (what else) and mechanical is a sub context thereof, covering the mechanical aspects. Including the ones you mention. P.S.: I guess you're aware that voting on answers is not about if you like an answer or not - especially on Meta, were downvoting is simply senseless :)
    – Raffzahn
    Commented Apr 2, 2020 at 13:40
  • But the mechancial aspects of a CPU are totally unrelated to the mechanical aspects of a cable connector. Why would you want to group the two together? As for voting, I'm sorry: how does one indicate which proposals on meta one does and doesn't agree with, then?
    – cjs
    Commented Apr 2, 2020 at 14:09
  • @cjs I give you, as soon as we have a dozend questions each for mechanical properties of connectors and such of CPUs, we should come up with a way to separete them (then again, doing a class 'connector' would be necessary way before, wouldn't it?). Until then, there is no need. Also, even in that context mechanical would always bee a secondary tag.
    – Raffzahn
    Commented Apr 2, 2020 at 15:09
  • @cjs For voting: On meta answers do usually offer different ways to handle the topic asked. Thus sensible handling means to vote for the one(s) that solve it the way you want it to be solved, not against others - much like when voting for a president were one would so as well - or is there another 'against' vote? So like with good programming the golden way lays in self restriction. After all, other then with main site questions, metaquestions are (usually) about opinion to lay new common rules, not factabout 'the right' solution.
    – Raffzahn
    Commented Apr 2, 2020 at 15:09
  • I disagree that something tagged mechanical-computing should also be tagged mechancial for the same reasons I disagree with manufactuer tags: a tag covering vastly different topics is not useful.
    – cjs
    Commented Apr 2, 2020 at 15:48

You must log in to answer this question.

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