Like an F-15, 767, C-130, or the like?
Or will these just evolve as people ask questions related to them?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Just my opinion but ... while I wouldn't explicitly prohibit them and such fine granularity might be sometimes useful, I think it would create too many tags that would be a nightmare to control and edit in all their tag wikis. So perhaps we should go with the next superclass and use tags by their manufacturer, aircraft class, and so on, like e.g. mcdonnell-douglas, boeing, lockheed, turboprop, transport, fighter,... to add an additional way of classification on top of being able to search by text?
-
$\begingroup$ I agree that we should have a tag for each manufacturer and not each airplane! $\endgroup$ – Lnafziger Dec 25 '13 at 18:07
-
$\begingroup$ @lnafziger I didn't want to suggest they should be tagged by manufacturer alone, but by multiple classifications, manufacturer being one of them. Then there's their role / purpose, design / engine type, size / capacity, certification class and so on. And if a question is specific about some aircraft, it'll have its name in the question body anyway, making searching easier. The point being, tags should help organize things around, not merely repeat a few of the keywords used in the question itself. $\endgroup$ – TildalWave Dec 25 '13 at 18:14
-
$\begingroup$ And I didn't mean to suggest that transport category etc. shouldn't be used either. I just don't want every airplane to have it's own tag. $\endgroup$ – Lnafziger Dec 25 '13 at 18:16
-
1$\begingroup$ @lnafziger Gotcha ;) Sorry for confusion & thanks! $\endgroup$ – TildalWave Dec 25 '13 at 18:28
-
$\begingroup$ Note that some aircraft families already have their tags (e.g. airbus a320) $\endgroup$ – Manu H Jul 23 '16 at 10:29
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
I expect there will be some need to have tags for the "typical" GA planes that you find on pretty much every flight line: (cessna-152, cessna-172, pa28, etc.).
I'm not sure how I feel about manufacturer tags, but broad categories like turboprops like TidalWave suggests also seem logical, and complimentary with model-specific tags (e.g. a question about engine behavior in a Cessna Caravan could be tagged cessna-208 and turboprop, because it fits in both tags and might be of interest to any turboprop pilot).
-
$\begingroup$ I think that in this example, any of the questions about the cessna aircraft could just be tagged cessna, without the need of a more specific tag. If we break it down too far there won't be very many questions in each tag, and if I want to find all questions about cessna's it would be much more difficult. Besides, based on the questions that we have seen so far, there are very few aircraft specific questions anyway. $\endgroup$ – Lnafziger Dec 25 '13 at 21:54
-
3$\begingroup$ My concern with just manufacturer tags is a Cessna 172 and a Cessna 208 are very different beasts (about the only thing they have in common are the Cessna logo & high wings), and the Citation series while still a Cessna is a totally different animal from either of them. I expect aircraft-specific tags will evolve as aircraft specific questions emerge, and I don't want to discourage their use when appropriate. $\endgroup$ – voretaq7 Dec 25 '13 at 22:01
-
$\begingroup$ While I agree that the different Cessna's can be very different, I'm not sure that they warrant different tags. The questions can still be tagged Cessna, and the question can be "In a Cessna 208 ...". Category tags can be used as well: piston, turbine, transport, etc.... $\endgroup$ – Lnafziger Dec 25 '13 at 22:21
-
1$\begingroup$ Category tags cover a lot of the gap, as do generic tags (constant-speed-propeller is just as applicable for an Arrow, a Cessna 182, or a Cessna 208) - I'm just saying I don't think we should preclude model specific tags (as long as the question is actually model specific). $\endgroup$ – voretaq7 Dec 26 '13 at 0:03
