Possible Duplicate:
A proposal for tag hierarchy on SO

I was wondering out of the curiosity of promoting question tagging if it makes sense to you guys (those who ask, and maybe those who edit questions to modify the tags) for an example like this to be exercised:

Question: Something MSSQL 2005 related?
Tags:  sql (or) sql-server (We should primarily tag it as either or both(?))
       sql-server-2005 (A `child` type of tag of the `parent` type 
                        of tag "sql" or "sql-server")
       Final Tag list: sql sql-server sql-server-2005

Does this make sense?

  • Just as a note, because such stuff arouses me: [sql] is not the same as [sql-server]. SQL is the Structured Query Language, the other is a Microsoft Database Server... – Time Traveling Bobby Nov 17 '11 at 15:37
  • Thanks for that.. I was just wondering how related they (sql and sql-server tags) could be used in conjunction with tagging for most posts and the difference makes a difference indeed – Nonym Nov 17 '11 at 15:42
  • Should we then differentiate [sql] and [sql-query] to make it more prominent from [sql-server]? Over on Database Administrators we've just sidestepped it all by assuming that if code is present, it's probably just [sql] to begin with – jcolebrand Nov 17 '11 at 16:18
  • @jcolebrand: I'm all for branding that [microsoft-sql-server], but I think that discussion was already lead...did I ever mention that I hate them for using generic words for their products? On the other hand, it was one hell of an awesome marketing move... – Time Traveling Bobby Nov 17 '11 at 16:36

You are familiar with tag synonyms right?

This sounds like what you're asking for.

| improve this answer | |
  • Tag synonyms appear (to me.. so please tell me if I'm wrong) to be a direct one-to-one relationship, right? – Nonym Nov 17 '11 at 16:45
  • so are parent-child, from the perspective of the child. – jcolebrand Nov 17 '11 at 16:48
  • Sorry.. what I meant was that (now following the perspective you mentioned) a parent may have more than one child, and if tags aren't placed specifically to cover the affected range of a question, then to get to the child we should always have to include the parent, even though the child would have its own identity? – Nonym Nov 17 '11 at 16:51
  • ohhhhh, I think I see what you're saying. You mean we should have all the pertinent tags? So [sql-server] and [sql-server-2005]? – jcolebrand Nov 17 '11 at 17:12
  • Yeah, that's kinda the direction I wanna take this discussion to.. Also, imagine: Guy A would not be affected by just an sql-only tagged post if he's a guru, while Guy B who wants to just focus on sql 2005 would have to sift further in sql for sql-server-2005 --this affects those who ask as well as those who answer.. Or am I being confusing again? – Nonym Nov 17 '11 at 17:48
  • we limit tags as-is to a limit of five tags per Q. Your proposal would require an open ended number of tags. – jcolebrand Nov 17 '11 at 19:50

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