On 13 December 2014 at 16:06, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> Jane Darnell wrote:
>>No, tagging is different. GerardM blogged about this with the example of
>>"horse". You can "tag" a photo as being of a horse by putting it in the
>>horse category, but in no time it will be filed under some subcategory of
>>horse. There are relatively few images in the top "horse" category.
> This is one of the most baffling parts of Commons to me. Why is it a
> problem to have images of horses in Category:Horse? You seem to be
> describing a social problem ("it will be filed under some subcategory [by
> a person]"), not a technical problem. If people are vandalizing files by
> removing useful categories, we should tell them to stop immediately.
Pretty much. We use minute sub-sub-sub-categories because Boolean
arithmetic on categories used to be unfeasible; now it's feasible, but
we don't do it because that's not the convention. So it would require
convincing the Commons community that moving to categories as tags is
a good idea.
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
