Tags on topics

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Hi - Just a quick note that the moderators are looking at adding descriptive tags on topics. See below for an example of a tag for the manufacturer Vought hghlighted in yellow:



Tags help the search engine find content better. They also create a clickable link that allows you to see other content with the same tag. So clicking Vought tag will show all topics tagged with "Vought" tag. .

This helps organise topics better and allows related topics (e.g. all designs submitted to a specification, or designs from a specific manufacturer) to be connected more easily. Initially I'm looking more at Project topics.

Users can tag their own topics, and a few people are already doing this. In order to make tagging work well, I suggest we stick to a few basic types of tags. Examples:

Manufacturer e.g. Vought, Lockheed. Don't get too hung up on the specific exact legal name of the company, keep it simple.
Country e.g. France, USA etc.
Requirement / Specification e.g. OS-130, TFX, LWF, F155T etc
Role: Fighter, Bomber, Attack, Transport etc

When creating a tag, check a few variations to see if an appropriate tag exists to avoid duplicates. I can merge duplicate tags if identified.

In future we could use tags to create a "tag cloud" page showing tags in sizes relative to the number of matching topics linking to all posts tagged with that tag.

Let me know what you think. Suggestions on tags welcome.

 

[Arjen]

If used properly, this could end the current plague of the same message appearing in multiple threads. I hope it catches on.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Its a better way of doing the "manufacturer index topic" idea for example. It also pushes it closer to being a reference database.

 

[helmutkohl]

Some thoughts

Countries: Should we just stick to the short names.. i.e. USA, China, Russia.. or the long ones (PRC, Russian Federation, etc)?
and i am sure there maybe some hot spots like Taiwan/ROC.

Manufacturer: Perhaps we should stick to the most recent manufacturer. For example F-15.. Boeing instead of McDonnell Douglas

 

[Antonio]

Manufacturer: Perhaps we should stick to the most recent manufacturer. For example F-15.. Boeing instead of McDonnell Douglas

May I suggest a different approach? Why not stick it to designer? Our subject are "unbuilt" projects so designer should be a more precise terminology. In my opinion, the original designer of each design should be credited for historical reasons. F-15 was a McDD product, most of its versions developed and produced before merging into Boeing. I think such ancestry deserves to be respected.
So, referred to the F-15, there is the McDD F-15A but also the Boeing F-15SE because the later is already a Boeing design.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Another problem with only using the manufacturer is that there would be a lot of clutter if only that is used, which is why I try to use (and recommend) multiple tags, so finding a thread is made easier. The way I would use it is having the manufacturer, the type of aircraft, and something basic about the article (if necessary). This would make it much easier for the topic to be found, as long the person searching has a rough idea of what they need.

For moderators adding them to existing topics, only one is necessary, any more would be a bit much and would be quite a bit of hassle. The fact they are even doing it shows their dedication, and is something that will be much appreciate by current and future researchers and members of this forum. For this I thank them. As a suggestion, I think that a small section should be included in the rules that should encourage users to put tags when they post a thread, so their threads can be found more easily.

Regards,

Wyvern

 

[sublight_]

@overscan (PaulMM) , how do we create new tags?

 

[DWG]

Manufacturer: Perhaps we should stick to the most recent manufacturer. For example F-15.. Boeing instead of McDonnell Douglas

May I suggest a different approach? Why not stick it to designer?

The problem with this concept is that newer (younger!) members may not always remember who was the original airframer. Hell, I have to think to remember that C-17 started out as McDAC and I worked on the blasted thing!

 

[DWG]

Tags for the major competitions - ATF, JSF, MFI, etc - would be useful as a lot of people are interested in looking 'horizontally' across the submissions, rather than 'vertically' through an individual manufacturer's designs.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

@overscan (PaulMM) , how do we create new tags?

Not wanting to answer on Paul's behalf, but I saw your question and couldn't help answering.

When posting a thread, under the main "discussion" area (the main box where the "body" of a post is written), there is an area for tags.

In that box, you can enter multiple tags, if separated by commas.

 

[Antonio]

Manufacturer: Perhaps we should stick to the most recent manufacturer. For example F-15.. Boeing instead of McDonnell Douglas

May I suggest a different approach? Why not stick it to designer?

The problem with this concept is that newer (younger!) members may not always remember who was the original airframer. Hell, I have to think to remember that C-17 started out as McDAC and I worked on the blasted thing!

Youngers could take it as an stimulus for research. Wikipedia can help

 

[helmutkohl]

Manufacturer: Perhaps we should stick to the most recent manufacturer. For example F-15.. Boeing instead of McDonnell Douglas

May I suggest a different approach? Why not stick it to designer?

The problem with this concept is that newer (younger!) members may not always remember who was the original airframer. Hell, I have to think to remember that C-17 started out as McDAC and I worked on the blasted thing!

i think there is no limit to tags.. so perhaps we could add both companies?
For example C-17 could have Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. F-16 could have Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics?

ps, maybe you might know my uncle, he worked on the C-17 as well at Long Beach.

 

[DWG]

Manufacturer: Perhaps we should stick to the most recent manufacturer. For example F-15.. Boeing instead of McDonnell Douglas

May I suggest a different approach? Why not stick it to designer?

The problem with this concept is that newer (younger!) members may not always remember who was the original airframer. Hell, I have to think to remember that C-17 started out as McDAC and I worked on the blasted thing!

ps, maybe you might know my uncle, he worked on the C-17 as well at Long Beach.

Wrong continent I was working on the HUD at Rochester. I think the only people I dealt with were USAF, don't recall meeting anyone from MDC at all.

 

[Bill S]

I know when I search it would be helpful in my limited world, vought, V-507, or F7U would really be helpful. I can see the debate around MAC, MDD, Boeing and not sure what an answer would be. #nohelp!

 

[dan_inbox]

Manufacturer: Perhaps we should stick to the most recent manufacturer. For example F-15.. Boeing instead of McDonnell Douglas

May I suggest a different approach? Why not stick it to designer? Our subject are "unbuilt" projects so designer should be a more precise terminology. In my opinion, the original designer of each design should be credited for historical reasons. F-15 was a McDD product, most of its versions developed and produced before merging into Boeing. I think such ancestry deserves to be respected.
So, referred to the F-15, there is the McDD F-15A but also the Boeing F-15SE because the later is already a Boeing design.

Yes, but the other way is simply untenable: Boeing C-47 Dakota and Boeing DC-9? Come on...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

For projects, the manufacturer should the manufacturer at time of proposal, but not too pedantic (Rockwell is ok instead of Rockwell International, Vought not Vought Aeronautics or Ling-Temco-Vought).

Built aircraft are a bit harder.

 

[helmutkohl]

shouldn't be too hard

F-15: Boeing and McDonnell Douglas tags are both fine since it has a connection with both companies
F-4: Just McDonnell Douglas (boeing would be a stretch)
F2H: Just McDonnell

Unless there's some significant objections, I also want to simplify some of the country tags too

Russian Federation -> Russia
or Peoples Liberation Army -> China and/or PRC (we can do China ROC for Taiwan aircraft like the Ching-kuo)

also get rid of some of the non-sensical ones like Japanese Super Interceptor tag on the USAF F-15 Modernization thread

 

[Antonio]

Manufacturer: Perhaps we should stick to the most recent manufacturer. For example F-15.. Boeing instead of McDonnell Douglas

May I suggest a different approach? Why not stick it to designer? Our subject are "unbuilt" projects so designer should be a more precise terminology. In my opinion, the original designer of each design should be credited for historical reasons. F-15 was a McDD product, most of its versions developed and produced before merging into Boeing. I think such ancestry deserves to be respected.
So, referred to the F-15, there is the McDD F-15A but also the Boeing F-15SE because the later is already a Boeing design.

Yes, but the other way is simply untenable: Boeing C-47 Dakota and Boeing DC-9? Come on...

Dan, I proposed designer, precissely, to avoid confusion. So no Boeing C-47 is possible from my tag criterium.

 

[Hood]

I need to think more about to get a workable criteria for the Naval section.

Basic tags would be:
Country: e.g. France, USA etc. I notice a few threads have user navies, while useful in some cases its true that for some nations navies changed names more often than the country does!
Manufacturer/Designer: e.g. Vickers, Mitsubishi etc. please keep to designer
Role: Destroyer, Battleship, Submarine, etc. I feel this should be kept fairly basic, no need to start breaking down anti-aircraft cruisers for example.

Requirement is a difficult one, often historical naval competitions don't have snappy names or designations.

Coincidentally, I suppose a 'Vickers' tag will bring up everything Vickers related - aircraft, tanks, guns et al? That could be quite a long list. Is this a problem?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yeah, that's a tricky one. If the tags proposed don't make sense for your section, choose better ones!

 

[Antonio]

I need to think more about to get a workable criteria for the Naval section.

Basic tags would be:
Country: e.g. France, USA etc. I notice a few threads have user navies, while useful in some cases its true that for some nations navies changed names more often than the country does!
Manufacturer/Designer: e.g. Vickers, Mitsubishi etc. please keep to designer
Role: Destroyer, Battleship, Submarine, etc. I feel this should be kept fairly basic, no need to start breaking down anti-aircraft cruisers for example.

Requirement is a difficult one, often historical naval competitions don't have snappy names or designations.

Coincidentally, I suppose a 'Vickers' tag will bring up everything Vickers related - aircraft, tanks, guns et al? That could be quite a long list. Is this a problem?

I think "designer" should definitely be in the tag list because most countries lack ship design capabilities and have to buy blueprints or completed ships abroad.

I also prefer "country" over "navy" for your same reasons

"Role" should avoid details because warship terminology is complex. To avoid controversy with fuzzy modern terminology I'll stay with official ship designation in their respective naval service, then Kaga class are DDH, PLAN Type 55 are destroyers and fleet escorts over 6000 t are frigates.

About long results list. I think that multi tag queries like "Vickers Battleship", "Vickers bomber", "Vickers MBT" should overcome any inconvenience.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Are the 'Great Britain' and 'United States of America' tags being deprecated? The 'National Aeronautics and Space Administration' tag also seems to be on the endangered list?

 

[helmutkohl]

Are the 'Great Britain' and 'United States of America' tags being deprecated? The 'National Aeronautics and Space Administration' tag also seems to be on the endangered list?

i lean towards using shorter names for things
USA instead of United States of America,
UK instead of Great Britain,
NASA instead of National Aeronautics and Space Administration
this is to keep the tags more compact (and also so you can add more and look less cluttered if needed)

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Could related topics have similar tags as well? For instance, one of the tags I have on my CC-150 Replacement thread is something on the lines of "Future Canadian Procurement", or something like that. This is because I plan to eventually write a thread about the possibility of F/A-18 or T-7 procurement to replace certain elements of their fleet, since the topics are linked to a common theme, that of Future Canadian Procurements.

Is this also recommended?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Are the 'Great Britain' and 'United States of America' tags being deprecated? The 'National Aeronautics and Space Administration' tag also seems to be on the endangered list?

Many of your tags are excessively long. I merged "'National Aeronautics and Space Administration'" with "NASA" for example. Brevity is preferred in general and people are more likely to search for 'NASA' than "'National Aeronautics and Space Administration'" .

'Great Britain' is simply wrong unless you are intentionally excluding Northern Ireland for some reason ('The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland').

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Could related topics have similar tags as well? For instance, one of the tags I have on my CC-150 Replacement thread is something on the lines of "Future Canadian Procurement", or something like that. This is because I plan to eventually write a thread about the possibility of F/A-18 or T-7 procurement to replace certain elements of their fleet, since the topics are linked to a common theme, that of Future Canadian Procurements.

Is this also recommended?

Sure. Common tags are the whole point of tags, allowing you to see related posts.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Thanks!

 

[Grey Havoc]

'Great Britain' is simply wrong unless you are intentionally excluding Northern Ireland for some reason ('The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland').

Great Britain was often used as shorthand for it prior to the late 1990s and the Blair era, so I usually used it for subjects that fully or partly predated that time and the 'United Kingdom' tag for subjects that included that time period and onwards to the present day.

 

[Schneiderman]

'Great Britain' is simply wrong unless you are intentionally excluding Northern Ireland for some reason ('The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland').

Great Britain was often used as shorthand for it prior to the late 1990s and the Blair era, so I usually used it for subjects that fully or partly predated that time and the 'United Kingdom' tag for subjects that included that time period and onwards to the present day.

A curious claim. Shorthand it may have been, and as Paul says Great Britain is incorrect unless specifically excluding Northern Ireland, but "United Kingdom" has been an official term since the Act of Union in 1801 and its use has nothing to do with the 1990s and Blair. Look at any official documents regarding aviation on the international stage, for example reports in Hansard, and United Kingdom is always the term used.