Talk:List of graphs

Web graph
The Mathworld article that is referenced here states that a web graph is a "prism graph Yn+1, 3 with the edges of the outer cycle removed." This (Wikipedia) article essentially states that it can be the same as the prism graph, and the illustration supports the latter. Are there 2 definitions? If so, should both be given? -- Nonenmac (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.combinatorics.org/Surveys/ds6.pdf states that
 * Koh, et al. [421] define a web graph as one obtained by joining the pendant points of a helm to form a cycle and then adding a single pendant edge to each vertex of this outer cycle. They asked whether such graphs are graceful. This was proved by Kang, Liang, Gao, and Yang [394]. Yang has extended the notion of a web by iterating the process of adding pendant points and joining them to form a cycle and then adding pendant points to the new cycle. In his notation, W(2, n) is the web graph whereas W(t, n) is the generalized web with t n-cycles.

This seems to agree with the MathWorld definition. -- Nonenmac (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge "Gallery of named graphs" here?
The decently complete article Gallery of named graphs (which should be named to List of named graphs as per Naming conventions (lists)) is extremely similar in scope to this very stubby article. I think it makes sense to merge them and use this as the main target. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There's also the Named graph article, which is related to Gallery of named graphs but it's unclear to me to what extent that article defines the scope of the Gallery. But even the Named graph article seems like it may have notability and/or undue weight concerns. Based on the current text, it appears to be 17-year-old proposed specification tied to basically a single paper. (?) If "Gallery of named graphs" is defined in scope by the Named graph article, then it too seems to have the same notability/undue weight issues by association. Regardless of the notability of the "Named Graph" article, the content at "Gallery of named graphs" is good would still be keep-able/salvageable and could be merge to "List of named graphs" with almost no problems. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also wondering about the "named graph" scope. Calling them "named graphs" is entirely an internal, in-Wikipedia concept. I don't know of any actual source that distinguishes "named graphs" from other graphs and provides a listing of them that we could use as a source. So it's not clear that any one of these three would meet WP:NLIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The named graph article is on a completely different topic, though. The "named graphs" there are ordered pairs consisting of a(n RDF) graph on the one hand and a label ('name') on the other hand. Note that this is not the same thing as a labelled graph, in which the nodes are labelled. The "named graphs" the gallery is about are simply ordinary graphs which are referred to in the literature with some name. Felix QW (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support the merge as originally proposed, except that I think that List of graphs is still the better title as it is simpler and avoids confusion with named graph referred to above. Klbrain (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

What, no mention of polyhedral graphs?
(other than fullerenes) —Tamfang (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)