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