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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l