hey @troejgaard ,
the image inclusion works like a charm, helps a lot in contexts of annotating images, and is highly appreciated as option!
thx for taking time and energy!
I don’t follow. Mention the note category where exactly?
yes, sorry, that was a little bit vague. I actually meant the h1-part of the MD, where the link back to the original note is given programmatically.
– but that was just what I had in mind as very specific solution to the more general want of having the note category visiible in some of the main and visible parts of the doc itself.
I don’t see why you want transclusion, but I can’t tell if you’re aware of the narrow technical meaning it has in this context. I’ll assume you just mean an image link.
your description of what I want is to the point and adequate.
I used ‘transclusion’ bec in the original script that @BLUEFROG kindly handed to me (when I was asking for a way to carry over the/some custom metadata info of an image into an auto-generated image ‘contact sheet’) the resp. part of the script was annotated w/ the comment “transclusion” along with that part (– see Automatic / programmatic creation of file from image and content of its (custom) data field(s)? - #6 by BLUEFROG)
The script already formats links according to markdown syntax. For image links you just need to add an exclamation mark.
Did you read through the script? Do you have at least a vague sense of what is going on, or is it all just gibberish to you?
yes, I was aware of that. In principal.
… the problem – for me, personally – starts, where things have to be turned into scripted language – which is unforgiving and not open to any ambivalency, down to small details of syntax, as you know.
So, I did read through the script, and as I said I tried to somehow get @Bluefrogs aforementioned part of the script inserting the image link (– yeah, let´s maybe not call it “transclusion” in this context) into yours.
But – without any proficiency in scripting – my reading relation to the script(s) was somewhere between “half knowledge”, “intuitive understanding”, “informed guesswork”, “tinkering” … and “gibberish” 
This fact is also the very reason why I was asking for some help here. 
… and, I am very grateful for you extending it here! This part works like a charm, and will help me a lot! Thanks!!
I can’t tell you just how much a visual cue / reference back to imges helps, when annotating them this way in DT 
Are you only referring to See Also & Classify? I don’t know if custom metadata is considered there; probably not. But you can use everywhere else—searches, smart groups, smart rules, batch processing and scripts.
It is not considered. The definition of “content” in DT is very strict, and vehemently separated from metadata of all kind. I can see historical and other reasons for this, as DT started as text-centric/-logic app, based on firm separation between textual content and “additional” “meta”-data.
I would say (and argued in some places) that this is not always helpful when dealing with non-propositional/-textual content, like images, where metadata (like description; IPTC title etc.) would very much deserve to be considered as part of the “content” – simply for the purpose of things like automatically finding / seeing semantic relations (“related content”) when images, audio, video, PDFs etc are mixed (pretty much ‘the modern document situation’)
Regardless of that, I thank you for your comment / remark here as well.
In this case, though, I was indeed referring to the “just” of “See Also & Classify” and automatically retrieved / surfaced related content.
In a lot of contexts (workflows) and for a lot of people here in the forum it is exactly this part of DT – “see also” (or “concordance” and automatic indexes) which are valued as ‘the heart’ (or “USP”) of DT.
I am aware, though, that these other aspects / functional spaces which you mention do work with metadata (I am very grateful metadata are part of search now!).
And, as you hint, there are contexts where indeed scripts, smart rules/groups are just as critical as “see also” or “concordance”. It just remains true that in a lot of contexts “related content” and “concordance” remain critical; and it would help if the (some) metadata would be (optionally) included – especially in scenarios where one (also) deals with non-textual documents. Just a particular take & side-issue here, motivated by working a lot and systematically with such ‘non-textual’ documents.
Now, if someone can carry me across the last red “gibberish”-line, helping me to automatically / programmatically insert note-type – that you so elegantly included into the script – into the note-body (somehow), I’d be even happier. If not, I will certainly find ways around, … tags… or something…From a practical standpoint, not as a big deal as image inclusion. 
So, thanks again, @troejgaard !