Apparently there's a tag .

My personal tagging choice has been + . I think this covers graph algorithms pretty well.

Do we need/want a dedicated tag ? If not, can we keep it as a synonym in some way?

  • $\begingroup$ Follow-up question: if we keep graph-algorithms, revisit the question if we need graphs. $\endgroup$ – Raphael Aug 19 '15 at 12:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Regarding graphs, please add links to relevant old meta discussions when reopening a discussed topic: 1, 2. $\endgroup$ – Kaveh Aug 19 '15 at 23:17

Not that this really adds a lot, but it at least gives a place for people to vote in favour of discarding and using + .

My perspective is that this is the more flexible route. We need a tag for algorithms (of course), and a tag for things-to-do-with-graphs (side note, I still think it's productive to have separate and tags, in reference to Kaveh's comment), so is simply adding a superfluous tag that may make searching harder; someone looking for a graph algorithm has two fairly natural routes via tags using + , and could possibly split the group of questions that should be found together.

Anyway, the votes for this answer can help decide.


You must log in to answer this question.

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