What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 131 Stack Exchange communities.

"Graph" probably means different things in different StackExchange sites.

The Graph tag on StackOverflow site is looks like a disorganized combination of:

  • Graph as in chart
  • Graph as in graph db (e.g. triplestores)
  • Graph as in collection of node-edge combinations
  • meanings in SO wiki

Should items be re-tagged or should we just do away with the ambiguous "Graph" tag?

NOTE: This qustion started on SO and refers (mostly) to the graph tag there.

Edit: there are tags for triplestore and graph-databases perhaps anything tagged graph and database should get a graph-databases tag and drop the ambiguous graph

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

There are already more specific tags for these various meanings:

I think it's “only” a matter of retagging the 4400 or so questions tagged .

share|improve this answer

The tag does looks like it's encapsulating too much. I took a quick look around to see what other tags handle these aspects of this tag.

  • For the "chart" aspect, we have tags such as and handling that. In the whole data representation aspect, we have the tag, but it doesn't get much use - perhaps its usage should be promoted in this case?

  • For the database aspect, which I'd have to admit is pretty interesting, perhaps specific tags relating to specific APIs would be a better fit. A quick look doesn't find any in use, though.

  • For the data structure, seems more than sufficient to cover questions about it.

I'm only throwing this out there, but perhaps be made a synonym of , and questions that deal with data representation be retagged as such.

share|improve this answer
1  
The [plot] tag is probably a better substitute for the "chart" sense of graph tag. –  joran Jun 25 '12 at 16:43
1  
No, graph as applies to data structures is far more specific than data-structures, they are not synonyms. –  Gilles Jun 25 '12 at 18:37
    
Yeah, honestly data-structures itself seems way too vague to be useful. –  Wooble Jun 25 '12 at 18:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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