Platform model tags

I am opening up the thread because I see that some popular old computers got fresh tags for each of its major models. I wonder if thats a good idea.

Lets take Spectrum for example. So far we only had the groups.
www.uvlist.net/groups/info/spc-128k-enhanced
www.uvlist.net/groups/info/spc-128k-only

Now we have every model as group and the tag is meant to be to set when the game runs with this model. Well, I own a Spectrum +2 (basically a Spectrum 128 with better keyboard and build-in cassette loader). I claim that 99,9% of all Spectrum games run on it. The same for the +3 (which has a build in disk drive, but of course you can also use an external cassette player). And since both are basically just Spectrum 128, nearly everything runs on that one as well. It feels very inflated. A keyboard tag for Spectrum games also feels inflated. I could not name a handful from thousands of Spectrum games that cannot be controlled with keyboard. It feels like tagging a Nintendo console game with "gamepad". If everything gets the same tags, the tag no longer is something thats defining a game.

I have thought about this in the past quite often. I am even guilty of creating the amiga1000 amiga500 and amiga2000 tags. I did this because someone tagged games with these tags but there were no groups. So I could have deleted the tags or create groups. I created the groups. Instant regret ;-)

Zerothis also created many Apple II model tags in the past. But he at least not just say to use a model tag simply when a game runs on it, but when the game is specifically supporting it or was specifically developed for a certain model. Its a bit vague for my taste, but it shows that his idea was to not use it for just about every possible model that it runs on. This is different with the new model tags for described for the Spectrum or Amstrad CPC, or Amiga, or Atari 400/800 tags)

I remember another very old discussion about minimum and recommended cpu tags for PC games. Publishers often put those infos on stickers on the game box and the idea was to put this in UVL tags. But the problem was. The publisher minimum might not be the absolute minimum but the minimum where its still ok playable. So should we try to find out the real minimum? Very complicated. Very much research involved. So it was settled to make it "requires at least cpu". The idea never took off though. Only few games were tagged.

I am not going to change or delete model tags. Just wanted to state my thoughts about it, now that Ritchardo tries his luck with it. But what I would like to see is that its done in a similar way for all platforms. So not for one platform its a "runs on..." and it gets many models tagged, and on the other its "needs at least..." and then only one model is tagged. I would like to have it uniform over all platforms.

I agree in almost anything here, not dissimilar from my previous request about redundant tags like "earth" or similar and this too.

Please do not use or create tags that are not really useful.

For example, the keyboard tag should be used only on platforms that usually do not support a keyboard.
In the Spectrum case, it would be more useful (and easier to maintain) to create a no-keyboard tag because THAT is interesting.

The Spectrum+3 tag should exist only if there are really games that run only on the +3, and not use it on any original ZX game. (the tag should be renamed BTW)

I understand the willingness to acknowledge those platforms, but this is not the right way.

As is often the way I end up stumbling over something and run off down a rabbit hole... I was actually doing some work on some Atari 8-Bit games and got myself into a fankle with the various different models and the memory restrictions.

It's also interesting having the context around the CPU tags for PC games because that's partly what justified my mentality.

To be honest, after a while even as I was doing it, it felt like a lot of work for not much gain because you're right a list of plus 2 compatible games is going to make it nigh on impossible to work out what doesn't actually work for the machine and feels like it defeats the purpose so I'm glad it's been brought up as I was going to ask opinion today if I should continue.

Happy to go back through the ones I added and get rid of them again.

So that we're all on the same page then before I do so:

* Stop tagging games as compatible for the 'mainline' models (i.e. the Spectrum models 48k and greater; the CPCs; the Atari 800, XL and XE)
* Tag games that are 'incompatible' for the above models as the exceptions

This does pose a couple of things that I'd like to get the official take on before I embark:

* Continue to tag the 'game console' versions as their own thing (as their only a small part of the overall catalogue - i.e. GX4000, C64GS and XEGS)
* What to do with the Atari 400 and Spectrum 16k? - relatively speaking they will only run a small part of the over set of games, it feels like to tag their incompatibilities is going to be more than tagging the ones that actually are compatible.

At the moment there is the "cpcplus-enhanced" tag for games that need or are running with benefits on a CPC+ and it also contains the GX4000. I think it makes sense that when a game has a cartridge version of the console variants of the mentioned homecomputers to make a proper tag for that. For Atari XEGS we already have it. I am fine with having it for the C64GS and GX4000 as well.

For the spectrum it could be a spc-16k tag to mark games that a Spectrum 16k is enough for. Very Early games from the first few years and earlier magazine type-ins are quite often 16k games. Atari is more difficult for me to answer because I don't know how man games that would mean and how to find out if something runs on a Atari400.