[WikiEN-l] Re: Categories for images?

[Matthew Trump]

I think it would be "ugly" in that many image file names are quite
nondescriptive, using cryptic abbreviations or containing extra info
in the image file names, based on many different nomenclatures. So if
you mixed them, you would have "clean" descriptive article names
interspersed with many nondescriptive and arbitarily-formatted image
article names. I think that's less than ideal from the standpoint of
easy navigation through the metadata hierarchies.  It would detract
from the nice look-and-feel of categorization of articles.

Overall, in my opinion it is more natural to have articles and images
in separate categories spaces.

Sj said:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:54:33 +0100, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>> Matthew Trump wrote:
>>  It seemed highly desirableto me to create separate
>> categories, for images only, so that we don't have "mixed"
>> categories of both articles and images, which would be
>> quite ugly and not very useful at all.
>
> Could you explain what would be ugly and useless?  The
> conceptual reduction of using the same term to describe
> both images and articles, or the results of a mixed-source
> presentation of category contents, or?
>
> There are distinct interface and metadata issues here.
> I'm not sure that it is necessary to have two different
> conceptual cats for maps (articles) and maps (images),
> if you mean the same kind of maps.
>
> Cat display /should/ distinguish source types; articles,
> images, and {other media} can be shown separately for
> each group without further metadata, leveraging existing
> namespaces.
>
> +sj+
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>