You misunderstood. [[Category:Image:XXXX]] not a separate database
namespace but can be done completely within the existing coding. It
is purely a convention There is no additional namespace, simply a
convention for images. Personally I tend to prefer separate
categories for images because it is what I personally would expect,
if I were looking for images. Yes, images *could* be placed within
existing categories with articles, but overall I think a segragation
is cleaner and more flexible overall.
Sj said:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:57:42 -0400 (EDT), Matthew
Trump
<wikipedia(a)decumanus.com> wrote:
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.
In this example, "US maps" would be a useful category, under both
"US History" and "Historical maps". That is true both for images of
such maps and for articles about them... another example?
I like Timwi's idea of
[[Category:Image:xxxxx]]. Some coding to
produce thumbnails in these categories might not be too strenuous.
Duplicating existing namespace distinctions under categories, like
database denormalization, is asking for data corruption. Then people
can more insert articles into image categories and vice-versa...
despite the naming convention. On the coding side, I don't think
there would be much difference b/t making thumbnails for 'image
categories'
and making them for the 'image section' within a category.
sj<
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l