"Articles" as they exist on Commons are used almost exclusively for gallery purposes. It is a preferred method of image display for a large number of commons users who often prefer the ability to customize image display and provide image discription that galleries offer.
Cary Bass Bastique
-----Original Message----- From: commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:commons-l-bounces@wikimedia.org]On Behalf Of Oldak Quill Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:13 AM To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Radical proposal
I concur. I only use categories, not sure why anyone uses articles.
On 12/07/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Crossposted to
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Radical_proposal
Since sorting images seems to be a categorical affair, and
that articles here do not
require much in the way of articles or descriptions, is it
possible to make article
pages function as if they were a category? It would save some typing, and reduce use of static linkage
(ie. articles) in favor of
dynamic likage (ie. categories).
"Articles" in turn would require fitting into a namespace,
though I agree that would
seem to defy convention. Again, this idea is based on the notion that everything could
fit into category pages,
or commons: pages, and little else. A migration/integration
campaign would be required.
"Articles" as they exist on other Wikimedia projects have no place on Commons.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l