The sql tag is just too generic.
Having the following tags should be sufficient enough to tag questions correctly with whatever Structured Query Language Dialect/Programming Language is being used:
t-sql (Microsoft SQL Server / SAP Sybase)
The sql tag has now been burninated.
It has also been blacklisted.
(technically, marked intrinsic, so inbound migrations are not blocked; the tag is removed during migration).
Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion and clean-up effort.
I am both for and against this proposal, so ±1 🙃
For / 👍 / Agree / 😺
Yes, the sql tag by itself is currently quite ambiguous. And not just because it's what you get as you try to type in "sql" space "server", but I would expect also due to it being how many folks, whether right or wrong, refer to Microsoft SQL Server. ...
I think the misusage of the tag schema stems from people not reading the tag's usage guidance or the (non-existant) tag wiki excerpt. There there is the ambiguity of the tag schema itself, because of the two possible meanings of schema.
This if the primary explanation of the tag as it is supposed to be used on DBA.SE and is explained as:
Against - SQL is not the only query language in existence. For OLAP we have MDX, for various NoSQL solutions we have different proprietary query languages. SQL and PL/SQL are not the same thing on Oracle.
For - Having said that, SQL is redundant on most questions it's used on.
Can we burninate the [truncation] tag?
Yes you can get rid of truncation by manually retagging the existing 13 questions to not use it. The truncation tag will be deleted by the system within 24 hours once it is no longer applied to any questions.
If truncation is recreated (unlikely since it has not exactly been popular) we might look at blacklisting it. ...
I absolutely agree that truncate and truncation are overloaded terms on their own, even when limiting their usage strictly to databases. However, should these tags really just go? It may still be useful to have log truncation and table truncation, as concepts, covered by tags, and if we agree on that, why burninate the tags when we could make them synonyms ...
I think it would be useful to retain a tag for the language for those odd times when someone has a question about the standard, or some aspect of the language that works across many database-management-systems. An example question, where I've converted the sql tag to structured-query-language appears here.
In light of that, sql could perhaps remain as a ...
I am still for burnination, but think the RDBMS tag is not sufficient and I certainly do not think all query-questions for PostgreSQL should be tagged pl/pgsql, nor pl for Oracle.
In some RDBMs systems, like MySQL and Microsoft SQL Server, they confuse their declarative languages with their procedural language.
In Microsoft SQL, they ...