Hello,<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/3/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Barcex</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:barcexwiki@gmail.com">barcexwiki@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
2007/7/3, Brianna Laugher &lt;<a href="mailto:brianna.laugher@gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">brianna.laugher@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<span class="q"><div><span class="gmail_quote">
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>I think it&#39;s not worth renaming unless we get a very strong candidates<br>that fits the criteria of being obvious, unique and short. So let&#39;s<br>see what more brilliant inspiration can produce. :)<br></blockquote>

</div><br><br></span>I Agree on this point, and think that the real problems why Commons is not so successful are not related to its name but to the MediaWiki software (as is now) that is very good to write encyclopedias but awful to implement an image bank. The concept of &quot;wiki&quot; (easy edit with full history of changes) is very useful for our needs, but the implementation with MediaWiki is far from being good.
</blockquote><div><br>I agree with this. Wikimedia Commons is a repository for free media. The &quot;wiki&quot; part is very important for Wikipedia, Wikinews or other projects, but on Commons it is less useful. I think a name such as &quot;Media Commons&quot; would be faithful to our goal (free media repository) and would allow us to maybe switch to a better software in the future without having to rename the project.
<br clear="all"></div></div><br>-- <br>Guillaume Paumier<br>[[m:User:guillom]]<br>"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." Henry David Thoreau