Daniel- It certainly can and should. Given the technical changes I've described that would be necessary to integrate this into the other projects, however, I would very much be in favor of also changing the name of the project, which is a minor change in comparison. Wikisource is presently not an established name; outside of Wikipedia's servers there are about 700 Google hits on it, and most of them appear to be Wikipedia mirrors or irrelevant hits (referring to WikiSource as the source of a wiki page). In comparison, my modest weblog "infoAnarchy" results in 50,900 hits, about 20,000 outside the server of the project. So I think we can safely establish that changing the name would not cause much grief, as it isn't very popular to begin with. I prefer "Wikimedia Commons" because: - It is more clearly about open content, and taps into the emerging concept of a "creative commons" - It would feed all other Wikimedia projects with content, and as such, should be clearly marked as a *Wikimedia* project - This would also give additional prominence to the Wikimedia brandname which it currently lacks. - The name benefits from the "media" in Wikimedia, which is exactly what the project is about. I find Wikisource to be a nondescript and confusing name. It is hard to see a music file or an image as a "source", there are many other meanings of that word that people will think of first. In the case of Wikibooks, the *original* impression (it's just about textbooks) didn't match the name. Here the proposed changes do not really fit well under the old name. word out how you can contribute your photos, music, texts to the Wikimedia Commons, than doing the same with "Wikisource". If Ray's argument wins that the two projects should be kept separate for a while at least, this will also require a different name for the transition phase, and a decision which one to use after it. Regards, Erik