9
$\begingroup$

We favor creating tags for aircraft models (Do we need a tag for each airplane model we mention?).

I typically create tags that include the manufacturer's name (consistent with , , etc.). Such recent tag creation () was deleted in favor of just the model name, for consistency with that manufacturer's existing tags, which I have missed due to the search engine wanting 3+ characters (I only typed "tu"). Existing examples include and .

Note: Old tags can be renamed (Are the moderators able to rename tags for this site?).

Q: What should our policy be moving forward regarding new tags for aircraft models?

Do we:

  1. Keep the format that is consistent with what was used, even if that omits the manufacturer?
  2. Use the manufacturer format regardless of what was used, and request renames for old tags (which should be easy since the moderators would target one manufacturer per request)?
  3. [Something else.]
$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
7
$\begingroup$

Personally, I would prefer to keep the manufacturer in the tag name.

While I don't think anyone will have trouble recognizing something like or (even though the 'b' is just colloquial and not actually part of the aircraft name,) I can imagine more confusion occurring with less-well-known models. For example, I could see something like or not necessarily being as obvious to many people as , especially for readers who aren't as familiar with aviation history.

Also, I could see using the non-standard 'b' prefix for Boeing aircraft perhaps causing confusion with the standard "B-" prefix used to designate bombers.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ On reflection, I change my mind to your POV. $\endgroup$
    – Jamiec Mod
    Sep 23, 2019 at 15:55
  • $\begingroup$ So, in your opinion, should we also use the full manufacturer's name when it is fairly long or not as recognizable to the general public as the prefix? I'm thinking about Mikoyan Gurevich corporation in particular, but I'm sure there are others that are more known for their prefix than their actual name. $\endgroup$
    – AEhere supports Monica
    Sep 24, 2019 at 8:21
  • $\begingroup$ @AEhere Yeah, MiG is kind of an extreme case. Like I commented on kevin's answer, though, I'd lean toward just using the normal designation for military aircraft anyway, since they seem to be better known by those. I would agree that mig-35 is probably better than mikoyan-gurevich-mig-35, just as I think f-35 is probably more appropriate than lockheed-martin-f-35. That said, if you have more thoughts on the best way to determine when one format or the other should be used, feel free to add another answer. $\endgroup$
    – reirab
    Sep 24, 2019 at 10:40
7
$\begingroup$

For civilian aircraft, the name of the manufacturer should prefix the model, separated by a hyphen. , .

For military aircraft, it should be , etc.

The short form is only for people who are familiar with airplane models. I don't see any benefit of it, except maybe saving a few keystrokes. We should aim the site at a broader audience.

makes no sense. It is either or , and I prefer the long format.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why would it be [c-5] and not [lockheed-c-5]? $\endgroup$
    – user14897
    Sep 23, 2019 at 14:42
  • $\begingroup$ For what it's worth, I agree. With military aircraft, I think they tend to be much better known by their military designations. The average person asking a question about a military aircraft often probably won't even know the manufacturer (with the notable exception of passenger airliners in military transport roles, where more people will think "Boeing 747" than "VC-25," for example.) $\endgroup$
    – reirab
    Sep 23, 2019 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ @reirab: Let's say I'm new and I want to ask about the su25 (intentionally missing the dash to make a point), and I typed that in the tag box, it will autocomplete to "sukhoi-su-25". IMO it's our job to make sure the site is in good shape, autocomplete will do the rest for the new users. $\endgroup$
    – user14897
    Sep 23, 2019 at 17:17
  • $\begingroup$ @ymb1 tag synonyms should take care of that. (e.g. "b747" --> "Boeing-747") $\endgroup$
    – kevin
    Sep 24, 2019 at 1:55
  • $\begingroup$ @kevin: Synonyms is more work, I'm asking for new tags before they're used more than once, i.e., once created, what format should we make sure that tag follows. $\endgroup$
    – user14897
    Sep 24, 2019 at 14:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ One nice thing about this convention is that it makes it obvious that, say, the cirrus-sr22 is a civilian aircraft while the sr-71 is a military aircraft. Likewise for c-130 and cessna-c150. $\endgroup$
    – Tanner Swett
    Sep 24, 2019 at 18:41

You must log in to answer this question.