Category talk:Graphs

Subcategory suggestion
I started bringing some order for category:Graph theory/Category:Graphs (within my understanding :-). My reason for introduction of the category I named Category:Graphs as models of other objects is the following. Vast majority of classes graphs are defined purely in terms of properties of the graphs in question themselves: a regular graph is a graph with all vertices of same degree, etc. They fall neatly into the category:Graph families. However some "named graphs" are defined not in terms of their intrinsic properties, but as an intention to model something else. For example, unit distance graph is a graph which connects geometric objects which a re distance 1 apart, molecular graph is a graph used to model molecules. Some of these graphs may be proven to have intrinsic properties which would allow us to speak of a "graph family", but this is not inherent in its definition, but rather a mathematical byproduct.

I felt that my name for the category is not very good and nominated it for renaming. Instead, everybody is voting for its deletion under the argument that all graphs are models of something. I cannot find a reasonably short name of this category which would express my intention of the Category:Classes of graphs defined as representations of particular relations, as distinguished from "Classes of graphs defined in terms of their intrinsic characteristics". Please advice. Twri (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I depopulated the category, after the discussion at CfR, here is the list:
 * Category:Graph models (statistics)
 * Category:Intersection classes of graphs
 * Bound graph
 * Circle graph
 * Coates graph
 * Collaboration graph
 * Comparability graph
 * Dependency graph
 * Factor graph
 * Feynman graph
 * Gabriel graph
 * Geometric spanner
 * Hamming graph
 * Implication graph
 * Levi graph
 * Line graphs of hypergraphs
 * Molecular graph

Twri (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some organization of the category Commons:Category:Graphs (graph theory) a while back. It hasn't been very well maintained, but it'd be good to be consistent about how we organize things. As for distinguishing structurally defined graphs from semantically defined graphs (and that's how I would label them), I'm not sure whether or not we want to make that call ourselves, as there are bound to be borderline cases. Dcoetzee 18:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will take a look there. Twri (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean under the word "borderline case". There is a rather categorical distinction between the definitions of kind "graphs that have something" and "graphs that model/represent something". Of course, some graphs may be defined in both ways, and in fact there are examples of graph classes independently introduced in both ways and even named differently, only later proved to coincide. But there is no problem to put them in both categories. Twri (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)