6
\$\begingroup\$

A few weeks ago, the question Dijkstra-like routing algorithm introduced the tag, intending to refer to Dijkstra's shortest-path algorithm.

Now, the question Infix-to-postfix parser using Dijkstra's shunting yard algorithm has been posed, and Jamal has added the tag to it.

Of course, Dijkstra's shunting yard algorithm has nothing to do with Dijkstra's more well known shortest-path algorithm, other than the fact that they were invented by the same person. I don't think that there is any utility in having the two questions share the tag.

How would you clean up the mess? There are currently 8 questions with the tag.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, I was also a little hasty with adding this tag. I agree that we can get rid of it. \$\endgroup\$ – Jamal Apr 3 '14 at 17:02
9
\$\begingroup\$

We don't need a dijkstra-specific pathfinding tag.

For questions about , use the tag. (Duh!) This includes Dijkstra's pathfinding algorithm, as well as A* an others. (We don't have an tag that I know of and I don't think we need one either)

I believe Dijkstra-like routing algorithm has more in common with Path finding - again than what it has in common with non-pathfinding Dijkstra questions

As for Infix-to-postfix parser using Dijkstra's shunting yard algorithm, it has the which tells more about what the question is about than any -tag can do.

Summary

For Dijkstra questions about pathfinding, use . For other algorithms invented by Dijkstra, use tags that summarizes what the algorithm is about, not for who invented it.

\$\endgroup\$
5
\$\begingroup\$

"The tag has no wiki summary".

I don't trust a tag with no summary: I don't trust that people know what how it's meant to be used.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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