On 7/3/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/07/07, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/3/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
More to the point, all Wikisource material has "language" as a fundamental attribute, which isn't really applicable here.
The equivalent fragmentation in Commons would presumably be, oh, something like -
image.commons video.commons audio.commons
Where would animations fit in? They aren't movies per se, but neither
are
they strictly images.
I dunno. Maybe we could have month-long flamewars over whether image.commons contained *just* "traditional" images, or upstart modern dialects like animations ;-)
Or we could have...
jpg.commons svg.commons png.commons gif.commons ogg.commons djvu.commons pdf.commons [...]
Why not just break ourselves up into "languages" like all other projects? Shouldn't be *too* much of a hassle.... I mean, I wouldn't apply for adminship on ogg.commons or pdf.commons but I might pass on jpg/svg/png .commons ... "Hello! My name is Ayelie and I'm an administrator on jpg.commons.org, svg.commons.org, png.commons.org, and gif.commons.org; if you have any questions pertaining to ogg.commons.org or pdf.commons.org I'm afraid I'm clueless but feel free to ask one of the 3 admins who are semi-active on those projects..."
I really do not see how dividing ourselves up is going to achieve anything other than a LOT of confusion and conflicts and annoyance. I don't think metawiki should be merged with us either; we get enough vandalism on license templates and images as it is without having to deal with people vandalising pages that are transcluded on multiple projects, not to mention the fact that a lot of the great admins on that project know very little about licensing and so would be lost as admins on Commons.
Commons is a media repository, meta is an information repository. Two similar, but very different projects - and merging them may make sense on some levels but I really don't think in the large scheme of things it would work.