Outside of specific antenna types or components, we have these tags for antenna questions: and . I think that the tag is not actually very useful in its current state. Its usage guidance is “Questions about materials or methods for building antennas”, but its questions are often as not about theory, simulation, or “which antenna should I use”, and when I'm tagging a question it's not clear to me whether it should apply.

I'd like to have more focused (and just more) tags to use on antenna questions. What do you think of this proposal?

  • — The design of antennas for specific bands, bandwidth, gain, impedance, etc. Includes questions specifically about simulation. Includes “what type of antenna gives this radiation pattern and gain and can be mounted like so” questions.
  • (or possibly keep ) — The mechanical design of antennas: “how do I make a sturdy and weatherproof feedpoint for my dipole” and so on. Also includes how-to-apply-the-theory questions like trimming for SWR. (The revised name is to make it even more obvious that this is about physical materials and so on.)
  • — The antenna, balun, feed line, tuner, ground, et cetera, considered as a whole. Questions where everything is relevant, like grounding or “what type of antenna can I put up given these constraints”.

(Subtopic tags that we already have include , , and .)

Questions for you:

  • Do you think reclassifying antenna questions is actually useful? Should we take the simpler approach of just killing ?
  • Are my proposed new tags good? Would you suggest any refinements?
  • If I implement this plan, should I keep the name or replace its with ?
  • $\begingroup$ In the absence of any criticism, I'm figuring to go ahead with this, slowly. In particular, I will start with the new tags, and change antenna-construction only if it is a continuing problem. $\endgroup$ – Kevin Reid AG6YO Dec 15 '15 at 20:06
  • $\begingroup$ Seems sound to me. $\endgroup$ – Amber Dec 30 '15 at 20:49

I have now gone through all questions mentioning antennas and, where appropriate, added the tags and . I have removed where it is irrelevant. The relevant tag wikis have been edited.

Some notes collected from the process:

  • I wonder whether we ought to have a "feed point" or "feeding" or "fixed matching networks" tag, covering all the things that may go between the elements and the feed line. Some of this tag's purpose is covered by , but there are baluns not at the feed point and matching networks that are not baluns.

  • Many newly questions were tagged with and . I wonder whether the tag is actually useful. Insofar as it is, it probably ought to be synonymous with .

I'm going to leave this meta question “unresolved” for a while until we see how the change works out.


You must log in to answer this question.

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