5
\$\begingroup\$

And you thought might be bad? (I forgot, was it?)

  • (Ed: since fixed)
    • something that's been assembled, or
    • a low level programming language
    • something that controls a system (e.g. using PID)
    • something that accepts user input
    • something that provides low level control over a component (motors, LEDs)

These tags aren't (necessarily) bad, but they have very different meanings which are all somewhat correct, so the point of using a tag to group them seems pointless.

Unresolved tags: Resolved tags:
\$\endgroup\$

12 Answers 12

2
\$\begingroup\$

, , : can all of these be squashed into something like or ? Stats:

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'd lean towards [strip-board] for [vero-board] (same thing, might as well avoid trademark), and [matrix board] afaik is just like normal PPH protoboard \$\endgroup\$ – Nick T Jan 10 '11 at 2:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NickT, They're all used so little that I don't think the site will lose anything by merging them all into one. \$\endgroup\$ – tyblu Jan 13 '11 at 6:37
2
\$\begingroup\$

The tags need to have wikis, and places where the tag has multiple meanings, lets expand it. I made go to , both PID related questions also has a controller tag.

On tags like assembly, for what our site does, I think the programming language makes more sense, but making the language assembly-language is an easy fix.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ All tags should probably have wikis, but I doubt most users posting a question would be like "let me go check the wiki for each tag I enter to make sure it's proper" while entering tags. \$\endgroup\$ – Nick T Dec 18 '10 at 18:38
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @NickT, the wiki is to make it clear to the community what it means. If the community is on the same page then we can police the tag as a whole. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Dec 19 '10 at 5:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ The main problem here is that the rep requirements in order to create/edit a tag-wiki are somewhat ridiculous for beta. \$\endgroup\$ – Nick T Jan 8 '11 at 1:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nickT, they go up with the launch also, but I understand your pain. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Jan 10 '11 at 0:25
1
\$\begingroup\$

Thought I'd bring this up, as it's a popular tag (23 uses).

: seems ambiguous to me. The only one with this tag alone is here. The others seem like they would be more effectively identified with different tags. E.g.:

Otherwise they're really not needed. One that is on the fence, IMO, is this one: What's the best way to store and categorise resistors/capacitors/ICs/etc? It seems like fits.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

Yeah, this has to go, or at least be split up into more descriptive tags. Maybe some the following: , , [tag:proportional–integral–derivative], , , , . is quite general, and would often be added to any of the other terms, but I'm not sure how else general software control algorithms could be tagged ( & ).

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

? This one seems way too context dependent.

Used in these threads:

  • Stepper Motor Control Timing
  • DS1302 Real Time Clock Question
  • Debugging LPC23XX canbus sniffer
  • Is it worth worrying about propagation delay differences when dealing with relatively slow protocols like I2C @ 400kHz?
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree. RTC is much different than the other three. \$\endgroup\$ – tyblu Jan 11 '11 at 20:48
0
\$\begingroup\$

Resolved

This may be a case where a bit of heavy-handed policing, as well as a wiki (see Kortuk's answer), would be most beneficial. I think it's a valid and important tag, and should relate only to machine code. Perhaps the term (syn.: ) could be used for its mistaken uses?

- tyblu


I retagged questions:

I guess you could make a syn. for mech-asm, but I think with the dashes it should give you the suggestion all the same when you start typing a..s..s..e..

- Nick T

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

Resolved

It has been used for both current-limiting fuses and fuse bits. I made a new tag: , and stuck it on this question. If there's no objections, the rest of the qualifying questions can be edited to (unfortunately only leaving 1 question). If there is objection, feel free to edit the offending tag to follow the old use.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Changed all the applicable things from [fuses] to [fuse-bits] (all AVR stuff) \$\endgroup\$ – Nick T Jan 3 '11 at 18:55
0
\$\begingroup\$

Obviously , , and have to go, but what about ? I think it fits. Anyway:

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

can encompass these tags: , , . Although is technically a modulation scheme, it is most often used for its RMS properties instead of information transport, so it should stay separate. If someone uses PWM to send information, they can also use the tag .

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

resolved (ignored)

Why was replaced with ? The original is more clear. I didn't know what meant until I saw its edit history. Can it be changed back?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ A question for @BrianCarlton \$\endgroup\$ – Nick T Jan 11 '11 at 21:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah, I see -- it was just a single user. I'll just introduce [design-for-manufacture] when appropriate, and we can merge/synonym in the far future, then. \$\endgroup\$ – tyblu Jan 12 '11 at 2:20
0
\$\begingroup\$

This applies to the general definition of the term, the use for which I think is a bad idea in the first place, as well as the name of an Arduino programming environment. It has been used for both. Perhaps we can retag relevant questions with , and remove other uses (replace if relevant)?

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

How about:

which, arguably, overlaps all of the below:

I would argue that the second list could be made synonyms of .

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ One tag overlapping others isn't necessarily bad (sometimes good), the main issue with this thread is tags that have multiple, unrelated meanings. \$\endgroup\$ – Nick T Feb 10 '11 at 18:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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