The tag has about 5 questions related to Intel 8080 or 8085 assembler code, and about 14 questions related to HTTP port 8080 (and when I looked, it had only 19 questions). I was reviewing a proposed Wiki entry for which was assuming the HTTP port was correct.

I'd like to suggest that there should be tags:

  • port-8080 for HTTP.
  • 8080 for Intel 8080

I note that there are, already, the following tags for 808x processors:

  • (162 questions)
  • (1 question was using it and 8086; the 8088 tag is now dropped from the question)
  • (8 questions)

Two of the questions tagged 8080 should be retagged 8085 (I've done that — the counts at the top have changed already). Should the 8080 tag be reserved for the Intel processor (for consistency with the other processor tags) and the 'port-8080' tag be introduced for the Johnny-come-lately use of 8080 to mean an HTTP port?

Alternatively, and as noted in the comments (and the very first version of the question), we could ask whether Port 8080 warrants its own tag at all, and simply remove the 8080 tag from the HTTP-related questions.

Another option is to introduce tags:

  • intel-8080
  • intel-8085
  • intel-8086
  • intel-8088

and get mass retagging done on those questions without the 'intel' prefix, and deal with 'port 8080' questions by either removing the 8080 tag as insufficiently valuable or using 'port-8080'. The 8080 tag could be black-listed or whatever is most appropriate.

Any views?


  1. Drop 8080 tag meaning 'port 8080' from those questions using it.
  2. Add Wiki for 8080, noting that it should be used for Intel 8080 chips and no tag is needed for HTTP on port 8080.

Any vehement objections? If so, please comment.

  • 7
    I came here after rejecting the same suggested edit. Honestly, I think having a tag for the port is silly, although I don't have a good suggestion on how to stop people from using it. I'm somewhat inclined to thinking the processor should be tagged [intel-8080] and the rest should be burninated.
    – Wooble
    Sep 12, 2012 at 14:17
  • 4
    (Note that there's no tag [80] or [port-80] on SO)
    – Wooble
    Sep 12, 2012 at 14:19
  • 2
    I wondered whether the chipsets should all be tagged 'intel-808x' for the appropriate x's; and I did wonder whether 'port-8080' was really going to help anyone. Sep 12, 2012 at 14:19
  • 1
    We have a tag that is 4 digits? That's extremely confusing. I agree with adding the intel prefix to indicate that it is a processor.
    – Drise
    Sep 12, 2012 at 14:53
  • @Drise: we have at least 4 tags that are 4-digit numbers (cited in the question); there's also 8051. There's a 5-digit tag too: 68000. Slightly surprisingly, there don't seem to be tags for 6800 or 6805. Sep 12, 2012 at 15:46
  • 1
    They seem completely useless, and provide no insight as to what it might be referring to. Something really needs to be done about this.
    – Drise
    Sep 12, 2012 at 15:49
  • Obviously this tag is about the number 8080 in any arbitrary base. Sep 12, 2012 at 16:46
  • The model numbers are used together with the assembly tag, which is not useful with the exact CPU-model.
    – Bo Persson
    Sep 12, 2012 at 18:15

3 Answers 3


I just did a test and it appears that it's currently still possible to create number-only tags. This should have been disallowed (or at least be restricted to a moderator-only action, such as version tags).

I'd burninate all number-only tags, they are extremely ambiguous.

  • Guess they'e assuming everyone knows what 386 means? Sep 25, 2012 at 2:25


There are currently no questions tagged .

There is a Wiki entry for in which the excerpt states that it is for the Intel 8080 microprocessor and the main text contains a link to Wikipedia and the Intel 8080, plus a note that it is not for use to denote HTTP port 8080 (no tag is needed for that).

The four tags 808[0568] collectively are all references to the Intel microprocessors; that is consistent, at least.

If someone wants to invest effort in retagging each tag into , I'd support that, but I'm not planning to try it myself.


I think that if a tag is ambiguous then it should not be allowed to continue to exist as that would only lead to future errors in tagging. Each of the tag's connotations make sense by themselves, but the existence of multiple connotations makes the tag name a poor one for any use.

We should have tags , , etc.

  • 2
    Having a tag that could mean several things doesn't necessarily mean that we have to invent new long names for all the meanings. For example, after a lot of retagging attempts, the community settled on using [assembly] for programming the [8086] and [.net-assembly] for another type of assemblies.
    – Bo Persson
    Sep 12, 2012 at 18:26

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