On 7 February 2010 13:09, Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de wrote:
Ok, lets's say Neil found a way to deal with 10. I give you that this is implementation specific. Number 2) however is independent of any implementation. Here you have your "hoop" (to to stick with your pejorative lingo): Get rid of the crazy category system and go atomic. What is vague about this, what part of this is unclear to you?
The problem is that doing this before the feature that uses it is in place renders categorisation on Commons even more useless. What this will mean is that you will be requiring a direct reduction in the usability of the wiki content before *possibly* implementing a feature.
In practice, the difference between this and saying "No, never" is telling people to do work that you know can't happen.
Please leave commons-l in the cc: this time, thanks.
- d.
In practice, the difference between this and saying "No, never" is telling people to do work that you know can't happen.
Wow, this is rich. We already had this conversation. A reminder:
Demanding that all six million files be de-categorised before you'll even allow a category intersection tool to *possibly* be deployed is backward.
I never demanded that. Geez. What I want is the commons community pledges support for a change of the categorization system. Putting intersection in the interface before they do is a _waste of time_. I'm asking for them to show the _tiniest_ sign of support. The programmers have already bent over backwards (including me with my own intersection tool)