Comment The fact that this video is not an image has nothing to do with its scope. A video is a set of images: you'll notice here that only photos were taken; to the best of my knowledge, the Nikon D300 doesn't have a built-in video maker; a .gif format would have destroyed the file. If you want to know, the VI is named like this because videos on Commons didn't exist at this moment: why do you think the Image:Thomas Bresson - Couch-sol (by).OGG syntax was named like this? This syntax also accepted video formats later, I believe the VIC can accept videos as well. And whatever you can say, the fact that something isn't written somewhere (video being able to be nominated) doesn't automatically ejects them from the VIC. In a nutshell, I'd have understood if you were opposing yourself for another reason, but this kind of reason clearly makes me think that only your (very good) pictures deserve a nomination. But there's no scope against videos either. Why not letting the community decide? →Ditithepenguin — 22:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because (ad nauseam) it took months to come up with a set of criteria to properly assess valued images. We don't have the same for valued movies. You can't just throw them in and "hope" the community will out of the blue invent a set of validation criteria fit for video. Lycaon (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Probably valuable, but currently out of scope for this project (just like the sounds we've rejected recently). I'm afraid this cannot be solved by a higher number of supports. --Eusebius (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
