We have two quite similar tags:

Do we really need both? Should we edit away?

  • $\begingroup$ We don't but I think you suggested getting rid of the wrong tag! $\endgroup$ Feb 8 '17 at 18:00
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Suggested title: "Fight [fighter-jet]" $\endgroup$
    – SQB
    Feb 9 '17 at 8:26

A quick skim of the fighter-jet questions suggests that most of them fall into a few classes:

  • questions about fighters in general and it doesn't much matter what kind of engine;
  • questions about modern fighters in general, which are jet-powered because they're modern but that's incidental;
  • questions about a specific fighter.

To me, the only real benefit of a fighter-jet tag would be for

  • questions about aspects of jet fighters in general, that don't apply to other methods of propulsion

and I don't see many questions about that, so it doesn't seem to be a very useful tag.

Is this a case where synonymizing would work? Or should we just turn all the fighter-jets into fighters? (If the latter, I would, as usual, encourage people to only do a few at a time, to avoid swamping the front page.)



enter image description here
no jet

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ bloody hell, I'm an idiot. I understood only now, AFTER I edited, what you meant. darn it. Should we edit fighter-jet away and have only fighter? we have a jet tag anyway. $\endgroup$
    – Federico Mod
    Feb 8 '17 at 13:02
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Federico I would say yes! If there is a question specific to a "fighter jet" it could always be tagged "[fighter] [jet]". $\endgroup$
    – Lnafziger
    Feb 9 '17 at 21:11
  • $\begingroup$ @Lnafziger Or, rather, about jet fighters but not about any specific one. If it was about a specific fighter, it seems unlikely that the [jet] tag would be useful. (Otherwise, we'd need to go tag every single post about, say, the 747 with [jet]. But why stop there? It's a monoplane, it has tricycle landing gear, it was built in the USA, it carries passengers, etc. We don't tag all of that stuff unless it's relevant to the question.) $\endgroup$ Feb 10 '17 at 8:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DavidRicherby Hence why I said a specific question about a "fighter jet". If it's a more generic question that isn't related to it being a jet, then obviously the jet tag wouldn't be needed. $\endgroup$
    – Lnafziger
    Feb 10 '17 at 16:07
  • $\begingroup$ Change the aircraft role, if the aircraft was an attack aircraft, where both jet and turbo-prop and other non jet powerplants are still viable. Would it be functional to have just attack-jet $\endgroup$
    – jCisco
    Feb 13 '17 at 3:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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