On 6/10/07, Ayelie <ayelie.at.large(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Some bullets and points comparing categories and
Categories are easier to add to an image, as you merely add the
[[Category:foo]] while adding other info anyway
Gallery pages are more a pain to keep updated in terms
of "let's gather
every single image here" as each name has to be found, copied, and added to
a separate page as well as having to add info to the image page anyway
Categories are for a more general dump/gathering of
Gallery pages are a better gathering/compilation of
useful images on a
subject, or images that best portray it
They are for separate purposes, something people
don't often realise.
I realize that. I just think that a combined view of both might have advantages.
Not every image should be in a gallery
as that would make pages rediculously long and take far too long to load for
some people. Categories are a dump you can add all images relating to a
subject into, and it only shows a certain number of images at a time. Every
image should be categorised and the best should be added to a gallery.
There are currently >17000 category/gallery pairs on commons. I was
thinking especially of low-volume category/gallery pairs. Large volume
categories could be automatically ignored (e.g., don't show the
"merged view" if the category or the gallery have >200 images), or
through a magic word, as suggested.
Well, 'twas just an idea.