On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:41:54 +0200 Jens Frank <JeLuF(a)gmx.de> wrote: The _preferred_ syntax would be no syntax at all. For a Media or Image-link, first the local wiki is checked whether it exists. If not, it is looked at in WikiCommons. This is preferred, because it is how thing will go in the Erik's envisioned 'fully operating' WikiCommons. However, if it is easier to program, the alternative would be: Have keywords 'Commons' and 'Commonsmedia', which have the same or similar syntax as Image and Media. Cool and thanks! Andre Engels

On Sep 27, 2004, at 5:09 AM, Yann Forget wrote: Any reason that this must be necessary? -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:43:56 +0200 Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote: I disagree. I think local is the better default, for several reasons: * It's easier for someone who uploads to a local Wikipedia to check whether there isn't a conflict than for someone who uploads to WikiCommons * The number of 'real' conflicts is smaller: If WikiCommons is the default, there is a problem every time someone uploads a picture with a title already used on WikiCommons. If local is the default, there is a conflict only if the WikiCommons picture is used on that specific Wiki. * When someone has made, for example, a translation of an image, they can upload it locally under the title of the existing image and be ready * When uploading an image locally with a title already existing on WikiCommons, we could automatically upload the Commons picture as an 'old version', making the existence of conflicts even more clear. Also, it seems conceptually more logical - just like in object oriented programming when you define the same method on a parent and a child class, for the child class the 'local' version is taken rather than the 'global' (actually, reason #3 here has much the same feel as method overwriting in OO). Andre Engels

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:17:18 +0200, Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> wrote: I think the action to encourage would be to re-upload images to Commons, deleting the originals, and investigating their copyright status in the process. The choice would come from being able to override the Commons image with a local version. This way round also has the advantage that existing uses of images won't break if somebody from another language uploads a "korea.jpeg" that's not equivalent to your "korea.jpeg", but can be made to use the shared version as soon as you confirm that the two *are* equivalent by deleting your local one. I can see that there might be a few cases where you really wanted to say "please by-pass the local version of this file, but don't delete it", but many of these could be handled by intelligent naming conventions "korea (translated).jpeg" coupled with a working "move/rename image" function. This makes for fewer possible permutations of image location, each of which can be explained to users: * is on Commons * is in local upload area * local version obscuring Commons version (point this out on Image: page, encouraging one or other to be renamed if both might be wanted) but not: * is available locally, but bypassed to access Commons version (indicating "this image is available locally on the wiki you just came from, but has been bypassed" is more-or-less impossible technically) -- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]