Should we have a separate tag for each plugin, instead of a generic tag to cover them all?

If so, what should be the naming convention for such tags?


I think that a generic tag is too broad for questions about a specific plugin.

I suggest , , etc. Putting "plugin-" as a prefix rather than as a suffix lets them be grouped together in an alphabetical listing.

  • 1
    That prefixing idea is a great idea. – davidlowryduda Feb 3 '15 at 22:49
  • Should there be agreement on the standard formatting for the name used after the "plugin-" part? – kenny Feb 5 '15 at 22:10
  • @kenny What standard do you have in mind? – 200_success Feb 5 '15 at 22:11
  • I would suggest the string that the author of the plugin has as its default installation directory for pathogen-style installs. Ex: plugin-vim-json, plugin-fugitive, plugin-html5.vim ? (Can you do '.' in a tag?) – kenny Feb 5 '15 at 22:15
  • 1
    @kenny Sounds reasonable. The . character is allowed in tags. – 200_success Feb 5 '15 at 22:20
  • The more I think about it, the more likely that is to help avoid tag name collisions. – kenny Feb 5 '15 at 22:21

Yes, create a tag for the plugin if you're asking a question about it. 200_success' suggestion to prefix them with plugin- is a good idea.

should be for questions about Vim's plugin system, in general. For eample: "In which directories does Vim search for plugins?".

  • 1
    My first thought on reading this answer was what a great idea, but I thought about it for a bit, and I know that the plugin tag is going to be abused, so how about vim-plugin as a tag and blacklist plugin? – hildred Feb 7 '15 at 4:42
  • @hildred Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. neovim plugins are also different, so we would then have vim-plugin and neovim-plugin (...and perhaps more?) ... Maybe even vim-plugin-system or some such? – Martin Tournoij Feb 7 '15 at 4:44

You must log in to answer this question.

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