I think this would work up to a point. Invoking categorization of
images *only* through article categories would not perhaps not bring
into a account the ontological hierachies that exists for images. For
examples, historical U.S. maps could be within [[Category:U.S.
history]], but they could also be collected under an image-related
category of all historical maps, which is a subcategory of all maps.
This particular hierachy may not be one that is natural for articles,
so it may be the case where we need image-only categories. I've come
to this conclucsion through some experimentation with this. I think
doing within the existing framework would be very useful.
I like Timwi's idea of [[Category:Image:xxxxx]]. Some coding to
produce thumbnails in these categories might not be too strenuous.
Rowan Collins said:
Sj wrote:
Cat display /should/ distinguish source types;
articles,
images, and {other media} can be shown separately for
each group without further metadata, leveraging existing
namespaces.
That's a very good point - each category could have a partitioned off
section for "Images in this category" as seperate from "Articles in
this category", with no extra work on the user's part.
I was also going to suggest that one benefit of having separate image
categories is that they could be displayed as auto-thumbnailed
galleries, rather than lists of links. I guess even this could be
done
within the existing structure - although it would become even *more*
important to have a decent multi-page results system...
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l