Magnus Manske wrote:
"Category inflation" will be counter-productive. The whole *point* of categories is to group large number of articles into them. If we had 130000 categories for 130000 articles, it would not really do any good, would it?
This may not be as much of a problem as it at first appears. Categories will be subdivided or split off as the need arises. Developing a nice bell curve in a statistical analysis can depend on choosing the right group sizes.
And how should filtering be done if we have categories "adult", "sex", "sexual content", "sexually explicit", etc. all for the same thing? If we want to make it an option to block "sex stuff", it has to be one option (maybe two at max), not a dozen or more.
Using some kind of codification helps here. A single code could incorporate all the items listed above. I'd be inclined to have a range of possible categories for this.
And non sysops can quietly go on creating lists as they are currently doing. We don't really need categories anyway. Lists are fine.
Today, someone talked on one of the mailing lists about one of your lists that took five minutes to save and slowed down the whole 'pedia significantly.
Whether something gets put onto a list is pretty hit and miss, and completely uncontrolable. If we look at any list on Wikipedia we can never be certain that it in fact includes avery relevant article.
Categories are my implementation of the filtering issue, something that would be quite difficult with lists. It could also work to tag images as "GFDL", "public domain" or "fair use". It can also replace the lists. So, if we implement a filtering option anyway, why not use the opportunity?
It can be used to flag a very wide range of "impaired" articles.
Ec