In response to all the category intersection/flattening stuff
It's amazing how different this conversation sounds when you compare
the wikitech-l one vs the commons-l one.
-bawolff
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Yes, it's rather confusing... ;-) Perhaps someone subscribed to both
lists could summarize what this conversation is about, and what has
come out of it so far?
Mike
On 8 Feb 2010, at 20:39, bawolff wrote:
In response to all the category intersection/flattening stuff
It's amazing how
On 7 February 2010 08:45, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Not at all, it's entirely reasonable to discuss the problems associated
with the current categorisation system, and what methods we'd like to
use to improve it.
The current categorization system is per-wiki-specific. It's
On 7 February 2010 13:09, Daniel Schwen li...@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
On 7 February 2010 13:27, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no reason why it couldn't be the other way around: an
intersection feature could be written and deployed *first*, *then* the
category trees on Commons would be gradually migrated to the new
system. Issues like
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
Yes, but they're not part of the interface.
So what?!
The first step has been made on the technical side. _No_ step has been
made at all on the categorization side.
The technology needs to work with the data - the six million files and
their categories, carefully added by hand by humans.
The
On 4 February 2010 17:44, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2010 17:38, Daniel Schwen li...@schwen.de wrote:
But we need the functionality there first, so we can *then* flatten.
Ahh, the good old chicken and egg ;-)
I don't let that count. We have plenty of working category
People need to be able to go gradually.
Yeah, tried that before. See [1] (Template:Tag). But that would be
quite the kludge. There are plenty of ways to change the category
system. What should come first is either a dicatorial decree or - if
it must - a vote/!vote for switching systems.
If that
pedant I know this is just an example but ...
- Daniel Schwen li...@schwen.de wrote:
(abbreviated) example:
Category:Churches in Guernsey
A ginormous list. However every blacklisted category could already be
filtered out! Leaving us with
Category:Guernsey
Category:Normandy
Is it just me who notes that Guernsey is one of the *UK* Channel Islands, and
not part of France ...
/pedant
That.. ..uhm... ...*sweat*...
...that was EXACTLY my point! ;-)
The commons categorization system is screwed up :-P
___
Commons-l mailing
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Kinzler dan...@brightbyte.de wrote:
[...]
Ok, all that sounded oddly familiar...
Atomic categorization aka tagging however also sucks:
Well, I certainly would not say it sucks. After all _every_ major
image library uses it. Will it be perfect? Probably
On 4 February 2010 19:49, Daniel Schwen li...@schwen.de wrote:
Is it just me who notes that Guernsey is one of the *UK* Channel Islands,
and not part of France ...
/pedant
That.. ..uhm... ...*sweat*...
...that was EXACTLY my point! ;-)
The commons categorization system is screwed up :-P
On 4 February 2010 20:12, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. The islands belonged to Normandy and still belong to the
Duchy of Normandy. They are not part of the UK. Normandy however is
now part of France.
They are indeed not part of the UK. They just, er, share in the phone,
monetary
14 matches
Mail list logo
