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.