The issue of using board names as tags has already come up in meta, but I was wondering about chip numbers? E.g. the ATmega328 at the heart of the Uno.

There is technically a definite distinction between questions about the chip itself, and questions about the board it's mounted on. This is particularly significant when dealing with clones/compatibles, or homemade boards, where the wiring and other factors can vary substantially. There is therefore potentially an argument for tagging by chip number where possible, so that relevant questions can be found more easily.

However, it seems unrealistic to expect inexperienced users to know the chip numbers. Most people are only likely to recognise terms like "Uno" and "Leonardo" etc., so it seems inevitable that we'll end up mostly going by board names.

Is there a happy medium here? Would tag synonyms be appropriate (e.g. making "Uno" a synonym for "ATmega328"), or would that just make it more confusing?


Microprocessor tags are a bad idea. Arduino boards are known by their series names and not chip numbers, and we should follow the same naming convention.

The microprocessor can be identified accurately for the official boards by knowing the board name and their revision number. For custom boards or clones, it is the onus of the OP to mention the relevant details in the question itself. If such detail is missing, it can be clarified via comments.


I agree with AsheeshR... microprocessor tags should not be the "default" here. Microprocessor tags fit in better with a community like EE.SE, where a more detailed knowledge of electronics is expected.

Arduino users will be more apt to type in (or similar) instead of tagging with . Synonym-izing the tags isn't good, either, as it is possible for a non- board to use an . This would lead to substantially awkward tagging.

  • Not to mention that newer users don't memorise their chip number! Feb 17 '14 at 13:49

You must log in to answer this question.

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