# Discussion: IC specific tags

This was quickly revised by a suggested edit to remove that tag, and to stick with suitable generics.

I had sympathy with that view so approved the edit... in my view, we're not Electronics.SE so are unlikely to have too may questions relating to any specific IC, never mind enough to justify having individual tags. And in the unlikely event that a single IC gains critical mass, then we can always introduce that tag later.

But now I'm having second thoughts... so I'd like to sound out the group so we can establish a general policy.

1. IC specific tags are OK for all ICs
2. IC specific tags are OK for common ICs
3. IC specific tags are not OK
4. Something else

Discuss...

IMO, it should be

3) IC specific tags are not OK

Tags are for searching/filtering purposes. I really don't see a scenario when a user wants to search/filter questions only about a certain IC. Maybe an IC family, but not a certain IC.

What's better would be tags for classes of ICs. E.g. , , etc. (not saying those would be good tags for Robotics.SE, just examples)

• Agree that classes of IC are OK (that's what I meant with suitable generics) although I'd question even 78xx - rather voltage-regulators or similar
– Andrew Mod
Dec 23, 2012 at 20:18
• @Andrew: Ah, oops -- I didn't notice that :s Dec 23, 2012 at 20:20
• Even Electronics.SE barely has IC-specific tags at all, which is why I made the edit. The most specific tags over there are mostly for MCU families, [avr], [stm32], [8051] etc. There are little-used [lm317] and [74hc595] tags, but those are very common parts and the only IC-specifics tag I can find in the first 18 of the 31 pages of tags on Electronics. If they're too specific for broad use on Electronics, we certainly have no need for them here. Jan 10, 2013 at 13:02