On 13 December 2014 at 16:06, MZMcBride <z(a)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.