[microcolonel]

> while shortening “Wikimedia Commons” to its nickname “Wikicommons”

Literally never seen anyone write "Wikicommons", in all the years I've heard people talk about Commons, but heh.

I don't really understand how they manage to (in my opinion) waste time on nonsense like this. The services run great, the contribution volume is immense, and the quality of the tools is improving constantly. I want the Wikimedia Foundation's treasury to keep more funds to deal with conditions which may arise, and seek donations when they expect the most success (rather than the most desperation).

I want the Wikimedia Foundation to make it as attractive and convenient as possible for all interested persons to contribute to, and access, this immense cultural resource, but basically nothing else; and I just don't see how messing about with the names is an efficient way to carry out that job.

[morpheuskafka]

If this were to go through, they should just make WC be called "Wikimedia." Wikipedia is a wiki encyclopedia, Wikimedia should be a wiki of media. What is a wiki of a commons?

[shawnz]

So you're suggesting reusing a brand they've already used in the past except with a totally different meaning? And that will be less confusing?

[microcolonel]

I think morpheuskafka is saying that if they are going to reuse a brand, as is already proposed, they might as well use the least confusing and silly short name for wikimedia commons he can think of.

[morpheuskafka]

The name is Wikimedia Commons rn, they want to drop part of it. I'm just saying drop commons instead of media.

[CharlesW]

@Wikicommons is their Twitter handle, so it tends to get talked about as Wikicommons there.

https://twitter.com/search?q=wikicommons&src=typd

[microcolonel]

Ahh, that makes sense. The idea of interacting with WMF through Twitter seems oddly neo-quaint.

[gumby]

I don't like this as "wiki" has a meaning apart from the wikipedia, so this is colonizing that, much as "windows" colonized the idea of window systems.

(I feel compelled to point out that my example isn't anti-MS: "word" hardly colonizes the idea of "word processor")