Motivated by the title/body of Why was the DC-9-80 so successful despite being obsolete almost from birth? and its comments (and the rollback), and then the tag info, I was surprised to find the MD-90/717 being listed (and mentioned in the tag info body) as DC-9-9x.
The title question here is rhetorical, because googling such terms only leads to the tag info!
I understand (and appreciate) the romance behind such names for the MD-90/717, but even for the MD-80, there is no place for the DC-9-80 name anymore (unless the topic is the origin of the name!). It was changed, and it's like rewriting history*.
The issue: IMO it hampers finding questions about the MD-80/-90/717 (indexing issue). After all we ask and answer questions for a wider audience. And for the MD-90/717, it's plain wrong (inventive, understandable as aforementioned, but still wrong).
What are your thoughts?
* It erases McDonnell's and Boeing's contributions, without which the whole family would have ended at the DC-9. For emphasis, consider the MD-11, no one calls it DC-11, which would also be rather confusing since there's now an MD-10 -- or do we call that DC-10NG? /grin
PS Sorry @Sean, or shall I say @yohanan? :)