Agreed.
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that we have the confusing Wikimedia in our name, is actually an advantage. If you want to request author's permission for freely licensing an image, they will immediately associate the name with Wikipedia, a name that everybody knows. The chance of success is so much greater when saying "Wikimedia Commons" than "Commons".
Bryan
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
As of Monday, 2 July, 2007, 08:27 (UTC/GMT), there are currently 10,471 articles and 2,680 files on Meta.
As of Monday, 2 July 2007, (UTC/GMT), there are currently 63,232
galleries
and 1,603,598 files on Wikimedia Commons.
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps meta can be merged to commons? A daring idea perhaps but we
could
more than handle it. There are so few galleries and articles on Meta. A "new" commons namespace can be dedicated to that import.
- White CatOn 7/2/07, Pedro Sanchez < pdsanchez@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/2/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is the "common" place for wikimedia projects for media
(images,
video files, audio files, pdf files). It may be further expanded
to
include
interwiki templates and other goodies when there is Mediawiki
support
for
it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediagenic is taken
and we
(commons) shouldn't be restricted to multimedia.
And Meta is the "common" place for discusions and coordinations...
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l