This question is predicated on two others:

  1. Tag Synonym Voting Rule
  2. Wreaking havoc with tag synonyms

The current C++0x standard is in the final stages of ratification and publication, but it hasn't actually been released yet -- it is not yet publicly available in final form.


C++0x can be viewed as the next version of C++. It therefore has a direct parent-child relationship to C++.

There are potentially many SO users who are very active in [c++], but less active in [c++0x] and even less active in [c++11] since that is not a widely-used tag. However, the [c++] users could have a lot to say about tagging questions as [c++11] or [c++0x], and their opinions should be heard on the matter even if they don't have much rep in either of the other two tags. After all, it is all [c++]-related.

Conversely, some users may be uninterested in [c++], and want to filter it out, including all children tags like [c++0x].


It has been proposed (see link 1) that the [c++0x] tag be made a synonym of [c++11]; in other words, all new questions tagged [c++0x] would be automatically retagged [c++11]. I disagree with this change, but that disagreement is not the subject of this post.

I believe that high-rep users in some parent tag should be able to contribute to the decisions made in child tags. I propose the following:

  1. Master tags be somehow given an implicit parent-child relationship to child tags. For example, [c++] would be a parent of both [c++0x] and [c++11].
  2. Users with (say) 10k+ rep in the parent tag be given the same rights and privileges as medium-rep (say 2500) users in the child tags.
  3. The parent/child relationship would not have any effect on the display of the tags, nor would any question tagged with a child tag be given an explicit parent tag.
  4. Users who propose what would be a new child tag must have high rep in the parent tag. They must not only have enough rep to propose a new tag, but also must have enough experience to understand the relationship between the parent and child tags, and how they are used by the community. This implies higher rep than just enough to create a new tag.

It has been said by @Jeff in the past:

we will not be doing trees, in any way, shape or form

However this comment was made nearly 2 years ago. Much has changed since then; for one thing, SO now has half a million members. It's no longer a village; it's a big city. The dynamics are changed, for better or worse, and these hard lines should be viewed with a new perspective.

2 Answers 2


However, the [c++] users could have a lot to say about tagging questions as [c++11] or [c++0x], and their opinions should be heard on the matter even if they don't have much rep in either of the other two tags.

There are - potentially - folks with no rep in any of these tags who - could - have something to say about it.

That's why you discuss it on Meta when there's controversy. Which you're already doing.

FWIW: I have plenty of rep in [c++], and no opinion on these tags at all. Just figure it out; I'll use whichever one remains.


Initially this made obvious sense to me, but why should those that participate in [c++] but don't in [c++0x] or [c++11] have "a lot to say about tagging questions as [c++11] or [c++0x]"?

Five upvotes is a rather low bar for participation, so instead of hierarchical tags, votes on either the proposed-synonym or master tag should be counted. (Currently only the master tag matters.)

If you don't have 5 upvotes in either of those tags, it neither affects you nor does participation in any other tag (e.g. lets say [boost] for this example) necessarily transfer over.

Someone that participates in [c++] but doesn't in [c++0x] or [c++11] currently might later be affected by it, but I don't see how to accurately predict the future. Nor do I see how hierarchical tags will predict that my [python] buddies will learn C++ and be affected later.

  • But python isn't the next version of C++. They are unrelated. Commented May 16, 2011 at 16:14
  • 1
    @JohnDibling: Exactly: they are unrelated. And yet I find that those people might have just as much to say here as those that don't participate in either [c++11] or [c++0x].
    – Fred Nurk
    Commented May 16, 2011 at 16:17

You must log in to answer this question.

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